Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

THE HON. MEMBER FOR COVENTRY, SOUTH-WEST

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received a letter from the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis in the following terms:

Mrs. Audrey Wise, MP,

99 Wolverhampton Road,

Stafford.

I have to inform you that the above-named Member of Parliament was this morning arrested by police and has been charged at Wembley Police Station as follows:—

"On Tuesday 21st June 1977, at Chapter Road, N.W.2, wilfully obstructing David Voller, a Constable of the Metropolitan Police in the execution of his duty.

Contrary to Section 51 (b) Police Act 1964."

Mrs. Wise was released on bail at 10.50 a.m. in her own recognizance of fifty pounds to appear at Willesden Magistrates' Court on 1st July 1977.

Yours faithfully,

David McNee

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis

PRIVATE BUSINESS

EMU WINE HOLDINGS LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

HERITABLE SECURITIES AND MORTGAGE INVESTMENT ASSOCIATION, LIMITED BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

NEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time upon Thursday.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday.

NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords]. (By Order)

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]. (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

National Health Service (Royal Commission)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the Royal Commission on the Health Service to make an interim report.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): The terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service do not require an interim report, and it would normally be for the Royal Commission itself to decide whether to make one. I am not aware that it intends to do so.

Mr. Forman: Before the Royal Commission makes its final and first report on this important matter, will it be able to look into the vexed question of the abuse of ministerial patronage by the right hon. Gentleman? Will it be able to make a recommendation that would prevent a recurrence of the sacking of more than one-third of the area health authority chairmen, apparently on the ground that they were not Labour Party supporters?

Mr. Ennals: If the hon. Member is objecting to the system he had better raise the matter with his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), because he established the system and I followed his procedure. Since the question has arisen I can tell the House that out of 90 chairmen, 58—that is almost two-thirds—have been reappointed. The remaining 32 are appointed for the first time.
In some cases the existing chairmen are retiring of their own accord. In some cases I thought it was right to make a change. It would be invidious for me to discuss individual cases in the House. To say that they were peremptorily dismissed, as I think the hon. Gentleman suggested, is nonsense. They were appointed for a period of four years. There was no presumption that they would continue in office for ever. I reappointed two-thirds, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. My task is to ensure that we have the best men for the job.

Mr. Pavitt: Although it is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission, is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong rumour that the whole of the dental treatment service will be excluded from its considerations? Will he ensure that dentistry is not treated as a second-class service within the Health Service?

Mr. Ennals: As far as I am concerned the dental treatment service has a high priority. It is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission. I have had no representation from the Commission to suggest that dentistry should be excluded from its considerations.

Pharmaceutical Products

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for the provision of medical products at retail level.

Mr. Ennals: Despite a steady decline in the number of pharmacies since 1960, this does not appear so far to have caused serious difficulties for National Health Service patients. This is one of the matters which I am currently discussing with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee.

Mr. Viggers: Is the Secretary of State aware that the decline from 14,000 pharmacists to 11,000 in the last 10 years is causing hardship, mainly to the elderly and to mothers with young children? Is he further aware that that decline of between 300 and 500 a year will continue unless his Department can agree terms of remuneration quickly?

Mr. Ennals: As I said, I have had recent meetings with the profession. On 16th June I met the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, and I expect to meet that committee again shortly. As for closures, although, as the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a steady decrease in the number of pharmacies, many closures are due to changes in population and redevelopment in cities, and so on. I have no evidence that this has been causing difficulties, but naturally I am concerned to ensure that there should not be a continuing decline. That is one of the issues under discussion with the industry.

Mr. Boscawen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that pharmacists are desperately concerned about this situation and feel that their remuneration will not be satisfactory and that there will be continued closures of small pharmacies, particularly in villages and small estates, where grave social problems will be caused? Will he do something more effective about it when he speaks to the Pharmaceutical Society?

Mr. Ennals: One of the points that I made to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee was our concern for small pharmacies. One of the questions on which we are exchanging views at present is whether, in terms of remuneration, there ought to be a system that is more beneficial to the small pharmacy than the large one. That is an issue that we are now considering.

Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps are being taken to ensure that the Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield is brought into immediate use.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): As I explained in my reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Osborn) on 26th April, building work on the hospital is still in progress.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be totally absurd for this superb modern hospital, which was built at a cost of about £20 million, to stand unused year after year because of lack of revenue to finance bringing it into use? Will he look very carefully at this situation with a view to providing the Trent Regional Health Authority with finance necessary to commission it?

Mr. Moyle: The contractors are handing over this building to the regional health authority floor by floor. Ten of the 18 floors have so far been handed over and the remaining floors are being fitted out. There is a subsequent Question on the Order Paper about the allocation of funds to the Trent Regional Health Authority, and I shall be dealing with that point when it arises.

Mr. Flannery: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that in Sheffield we have

a great fear of this beautiful hospital standing there like Centre Point but, of course, not making any profit, at the same time as the sick and the medical profession are urgently in need of it? Will he also accept from me that we think that the existence of the old hospitals will more than likely cost just about as much money as it would cost to open this wonderful hospital? Therefore, accepting, as I do, what he has just said, may I ask him to rethink the whole problem?

Mr. Moyle: The out-patients department and the medical school are already in use, and, subject to resources being available, it is planned to bring the rest of the hospital into use progressively between April 1978 and February 1979. The AHA is giving urgent consideration to the point that my hon. Friend has raised. It is meeting its RHA to discuss its finance problem.

Miss Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem is not that the hospital is not completed, from the building point of view, but that the Government have not made available the necessary money to make sure that it can be opened on time? Would it not be more sensible to spend our money on hospitals and something useful for the people instead of cutting public expenditure and not making available the money when the hospital is actually almost ready for occupation?

Mr. Moyle: Resources allocated to the NHS are growing currently at the rate of 1½ per cent. to 2 per cent. a year. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about spending money on hospitals. Indeed, I am always inclined to spend money on hospitals. I find it a good thing. Obviously, rationalisation of local resources will have to take place if the Hallamshire Hospital is to open.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Management)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he still plans to introduce legislation in the current Session requiring trade unions to occupy half the trustee positions under an occupational pension scheme.

Mrs. Chalker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he


intends to publish proposals for putting trade unionists on pension fund boards.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Stanley Orme): The Government's proposals concerning the role of members in the running of pension schemes were published last year, but no decision has yet been taken about the introduction of legislation in this Session.

Mr. McCrindle: I welcome that reply as far as it goes and express the hope that the Minister will tell me that there is no intention to introduce legislation next Session, should the present Government survive. Will he confirm that in a recent public opinion survey almost 70 per cent. of the people interviewed disapproved of the Government's proposals, whereas more than 80 per cent. approved of the idea of all employees, and not just trade unionists, being involved in the running of their pension schemes? Why are the Government so obstinate about taking note of public opinion on these matters?

Mr. Orme: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's negative attitude. I should have thought that he would welcome proposals that brought industrial democracy to 11 million people in Britain in occupational pension schemes. The hon. Gentleman refers to the CBI survey. That is only one that has taken place.

Mr. Clemitson: Is it not true that according to the latest report from the Government Actuary's Department, 75 per cent. of those in the public sector and 88 per cent. in the case of public corporations are covered by pension funds, as compared with only 39 per cent. in the private sector, and that the general level of pensions in the public sector is higher than that in the private sector? Will my right hon. Friend say how the representation of members of funds in the public sector compares with that in the private sector?

Mr. Orme: It is quite true that in the public sector there is a higher percentage of members. Frankly, one of our objectives is to increase occupational pensions in both the private and the public sectors. As to what percentage take part in the management of these schemes, it is the Government's desire, through the White Paper, to see that this participation goes right across the board, including both private and public sectors.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, however, that voluntary participation in the management of pension schemes is developing rapidly in the present context? Does he realise that some of us who have laboured to obtain an agreed pension policy will profoundly regret it if he pursues divisive and unnecessary legislation in this field?

Mr. Orme: After the Government's widespread consultation within industry, with both sides, the White Paper has done more to bring about participation in the last 12 months than what has taken place in the last 20 years in pension schemes. Many managements pay lip-service to participation but never consult their employees on any basis.

Mr. Skinner: Has my right hon. Friend read the report that appeared in The Guardian a few days ago which indicates, from a supposedly reliable Liberal source, that this measure will be shelved? [AN HON. MEMBER: "Where are the Liberals?"] They are not present, as usual. They are absentee part-landlords. On this day, when we have been discussing the nature of our next Queen's Speech and the legislative programme for the next year, will my right hon. Friend announce that the measure will not be shelved but will be introduced, and that he will be exerting the greatest possible pressure to that end?

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend certainly for his reference to The Guardian. I read that report with great interest. I can inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Government are still seriously considering the Bill based on the White Paper. We hope to be able to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister say what kind of democracy it is that would exclude any member of a pension scheme from voting for the trustees? What surveys does he have which rebut the findings of the CBI survey?

Mr. Orme: The Government's proposals are to give the vast majority of people in pension schemes the vote for the first time.

Mr. Tim Renton: Why not all of them?

Mr. Orme: As I have indicated, many people have not been consulted in the past, and the Government, through their White Paper, believe that the trade unions, which have conducted negotiations on every other aspect of conditions for working people, can be entrusted with this one as well.

Disabled Drivers

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received from disabled drivers about the phasing out of the three-wheeler.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will report to the House on his meeting with disabled drivers in Westminster Hall on 17th May.

Mr. Ennals: Numerous letters and petitions taking various points of view have been sent to me and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Disabled. We had the opportunity to meet disabled drivers who lobbied Parliament, on 17th May, asking for the vehicle service to be restored. We also met representatives of the Joint Committee on Mobility for the Disabled on 26th May.

Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that mobility is vital to this group, and that the widespread delay in making a number of decisions on this matter is causing tremendous anxiety? Why has the scheme to commute the allowance not yet been introduced, when there has been provision for the allowance for over a year?

Mr. Ennals: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is so committed to the extension of the mobility allowance, because, as he knows, this will enormously increase the number of people who will get assistance as a result of their disablement who were never able to do so before.
In the debate in the House on 26th April I mentioned the proposals that had come from the Central Council for the Disabled to provide car purchase loans for disabled people in greatest need. With some support from the Government, the association hopes to be able to raise extra interest-free capital from charitable sources.
Before the end of the Session I hope to make a statement to the House on

the progress made on these proposals, which could also embrace leasing cars as well as the purchase of vehicles.

Mr. Marten: That sounds as though there may be some progress. Is the Minister aware of the confusion and anxiety that exist among many disabled people over the lack of a clear policy at this stage, particularly the anxiety among young school leavers? What priority do the Government give to the disabled?

Mr. Ennals: The fact that we are multiplying by three the amount of money that is being spent by this Department on mobility for the disabled shows the sense of priority that this Government have given compared with our predecessors. The hon. Gentleman can see that it is a very high priority indeed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to confusion. I am afraid it is true that there has been some confusion. I think that some of it has been wilful confusion, and this has been very disturbing to disabled people. That is why I wrote to every owner of a trike explaining exactly the commitment of the Government.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Central Council for the Disabled no longer exists? It is now RADAR—the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation.
Will my right hon. Friend urgently prompt the Treasury to give substantial donations to this organisation to enable it to organise a scheme whereby disabled drivers and people in receipt of mobility allowance can purchase or lease their vehicles speedily? Would that not enable us to know the extent of the residual problem with regard to vehicles?

Mr. Ennals: I welcome my hon. Friend's support and absolutely share his concern about trying to achieve this objective. The discussions so far are going in an encouraging way. That is why I feel that it is likely that I shall be able to make a statement to the House before the recess.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether at any time specifications have been submitted to motor car manufacturers to produce a four-wheeled vehicle suitable for the disabled, and, if so, what progress has been made?

Mr. Ennals: A good deal of work has already been done on the conversion of existing vehicles. Part of the discussion with the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—has in fact dealt with different types of Minis that would be available. My Department is now engaged in research jointly with the Department of Transport, and we are studying the available information. We are considering what further research is desirable in order to identify, among the many possible lines of development, those adaptations or prototype specialist vehicles which have the best prospect of meeting the specialist needs of disabled people.

Mr. MacKay: Does the Secretary of State realise that many disabled drivers require a vehicle and not a mobility allowance, and that the reason why we have this lobby, and why there is such consternation in disabled driving circles, is that it is believed by the disabled that the right hon. Gentleman intends to cut off their lifeline with society? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position now, because these people are in a dreadful state and require clarification as soon as possible.

Mr. Ennals: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends constantly repeat this sort of thing and create stress, disturbance and alarm among disabled people. [Interruption.] I wrote to all those concerned, seeking to reassure them. I want to make it clear in the House today that I am determined to ensure that no one who has a tricycle issued under the old scheme will be made immobile by the phasing out of the tricycle. I have already made this clear to them. I have said also that we have now made arrangements that will make it likely that the existing trike holders will be able to have trikes until 1982–83. Conservative Members ought to be able to accept these reassurances. It is a pity that these stories are constantly repeated across the floor of the House.

Mr. Ovenden: In view of the amount of public money invested in British Leyland and Chrysler, does not my right hon. Friend feel that we have a right to ask either or both of them to co-operate with the Government in the production of a purpose-built replacement for the tricycle?

Mr. Ennals: We are in discussion with Leyland about what can be its most effective contribution to the needs of disabled people. Leyland has made some important offers, in terms of the purchase of existing vehicles, and I am certainly prepared to discuss with the company whether it can go further in terms of adaptation.

Dr. Vaughan: But is it not a fact that under the new scheme about 3,000 newly-disabled persons and young school leavers who are disabled, who would previously have had transport, are now housebound and unable to go to work, to school or to university? Is this not a monstrous thing to have done to this group of people? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Mr. Ennals: It is not true that they are all housebound. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Employment Service Agency's travel-to-work scheme is willing to provide assistance to young people and to other disabled people who need extra expenses to be covered to enable them to get to work. This scheme is already available, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are now discussing with the Department concerned whether the scheme can be revived in a way that will make it more helpful. In any case, there is the mobility allowance.
At the mass meeting held in Westminster Hall the hon. Gentleman promised an immediate and substantial increase in mobility allowance if the Opposition were returned to power at a General Election. That is what the hon. Gentleman said. I think he might now be prepared to tell us when "immediate" is meant to be and how much is "substantial".

Hospital Consultants (Pay)

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects the report of the Review Body on hospital consultants' pay to be published.

Mr. Ennals: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the publication and the Government's acceptance of the Seventh Report of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration on 26th May.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the Secretary of State aware that in its report this impartial body has concluded in outspoken terms that the pay structure has


become riddled with anomalies since 1975 and that there is a lack of logic in the arrangements and a serious decline in morale? Is he further aware that the confidence of doctors and hospital consultants will not be restored until this matter is put right? What steps is he taking to put it right?

Mr. Ennals: There is no question that the review body did, as the hon. Gentleman said, report that the first two stages of pay policy, together with the new contract for junior hospital doctors—agreed before the pay restraint measures—had produced anomalies. There is no question about it. I am afraid that that situation exists among many other sections of organised workers in society; it is not something that affects only doctors. In the discussions now proceeding for further arrangements we must, of course, hope that there will be greater flexibility. That point has been strongly put to me by the British Medical Association as well as by the review body.

Mr. Pavitt: Does my right hon. Friend recall that every report issued since the Pilkington Committee established the review body has been received by the doctors with acrimony? Will he now, in the light of the work of the committee formerly chaired in his Department by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. Owen), present to the Royal Commission evidence from his Department on the complete restructuring of the hospital medical services?

Mr. Ennals: I shall not make that promise immediately. I am very ready to have discussions with my hon. Friend about any further evidence that my Department ought to give to the Royal Commission. We have already given evidence to the Royal Commission, as my hon. Friend knows. As to the report of the review body, the profession has still not decided whether to accept the recommendations that have been made in it.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Secretary of State consider that the existence of this report will result in a substantial reduction in the recent massively increased waiting times to see hospital consultants? If not, what action will he take so that the massive delays that arthritic patients in this country now face before receiving treatment are reduced?

Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman is not really right. For a long time we have had an increase in waiting lists. I am happy to say that the increase now seems to have stopped and that with regard to 90 per cent. of cases, which are urgent cases, the waiting period is now starting to decrease. That is encouraging. Certainly a year or so ago it was very disturbing indeed. Relations in the Health Service are much improved and for that reason waiting lists are not as serious a problem now, although they are still serious. My Department has circulated proposals, which are now under consideration.

One-parent Families (Finer Report)

Mr. Loyden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations have been made to him from lone-parent families on the implementation of the Finer Report.

Mr. Orme: We have received a number of letters in which the subjects most frequently mentioned were the implementation of the Finer Report as a whole, improved maintenance recovery and financial help generally, and provision of day-care facilities. In addition, my right hon. Friend has twice received a deputation from the Finer Joint Action Committee.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those views reflect the general feelings both inside and outside the House with regard to the implementation of the Finer Report? Does he accept that the Labour Party, if naught else, is the party of compassion and social justice? It is therefore necessary that the Labour Government should ensure that these aspects of the Finer Report are brought into being. The fact that Back Benchers are compelled to vote for resources going in other directions to areas of less need has created many problems for the Government at the moment.

Mr. Orme: Although a number of Finer proposals have been implemented, not all are practical. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that since we took office the Government have added £380 million a year to social security benefits for one-parent families. These benefits are now running at a level of


£650 million a year. The House will also be aware that the problem of one-parent families is an increasing one. At the moment, there are about 630,000 in this country. That figure is increasing at the rate of 10 per cent. a year. It is a massive social problem as well as a financial problem.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one-parent families in particular have suffered more greatly in the last three years than have families without children?

Mr. Orme: I am aware of the difficulties among one-parent families and I know that there is a great deal of poverty among them. That is why the Government have taken the actions that they have. We should like to do more, and we shall do when the resources become available.

Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that single-parent families are among the poorest of the poor and that the Government are simply not doing enough for them? Does he agree that the most important two things that can be done are, first, to give them a guaranteed maintenance allowance on a generous scale and, secondly, for him to consult his other Cabinet colleagues about implementing the Finer Report in full instead of handing out concessions to wealthy people, as the Government do at the moment?

Mr. Orme: I remind my hon. Friend of the public expenditure difficulties at the moment and the calls upon public expenditure from pensioners, one-parent families, working families with children, and large families. All these groups are competing for priority from the Government and within our society. I certainly take note of the points made by my hon. Friend, but I hope that he will take note of the fact that this is an issue of priorities.

Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that there are two basic actions that he could take at the moment to help one-parent families? He could review the situation of claw-back as it affects the child benefit scheme for one-parent families and he could end taxation on widows' pensions.

Mr. Orme: I take note of both those points. I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that a 50p premium is paid to one-

parent families. At the moment the Government are looking at the whole issue of child benefit, and any improvement in child benefit must benefit one-parent families.

National Mobility Petition

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many signatures he has now received to the National Mobility Petition.

Mr. Enrolls: About 100,000 signatures so far. I shall be receiving the bulk of the signatures tomorrow, when I formally take receipt of the petition at a meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House. I understand that there will be over 400,000 signatures.

Mr. Renton: The Secretary of State said earlier that he is seeking ways and means of making the mobility scheme more flexible. Does he agree that the only way to do this is to continue to make available a suitable vehicle for the disabled? Is he, in fact, now seeking ways and means of making such a vehicle available to the 3,000 young who became 17 since last July and who have not got a vehicle?

Mr. Ennals: I have made it clear on many occasions that my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Disabled and I are looking carefully at the sorts of specialised vehicle that may meet the needs of those who have trikes at the conclusion of the lifetime of trikes. As I have already reported to the House, we are also considering whether we can introduce a new scheme that will assist people, especially in the lease or purchase of vehicles. I have already told the House that I hope to make a statement as early as I can.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constant reference to the vehicle pays little regard to the amount of work done for those people who are unable to drive? Since the impression is constantly given that the trike is being withdrawn from existing users, and since nothing that my right hon. Friend says in the House seems to make the Opposition and people outside accept the fact, will he consider making a ministerial television broadcast in order to


reach the public and give them the true facts?

Mr. Eunals: I have done precisely that on television on a number of occasions. The difficulty is that it seems that Conservative Members are absolutely determined to mislead disabled people. [Interruption.] It is true. I have seen some of the advice that was given during the preparation of the petition that I shall receive tommorrow. For instance, signatories appear to have been told that current trike drivers will be housebound when the supply of trikes runs out. I have made it absolutely clear that that is not so. No one who has a trike issued under the old scheme will be made immobile by the phasing out of the trike. I have insisted to the House that I am determined that this shall be so.

Dr. Vaughan: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question and say what he proposes to do about the 3,000 young people who are stuck in their homes? Is he going to leave them there, unable to work? When he next quotes me, will he do so accurately and not misquote me?

Mr. Ennals: What I quoted from what the hon. Gentleman said in Westminster Hall was absolutely accurate. I, and a number of other hon. Members, heard what he said. We are still awaiting his answer. The Government have accepted that it is not only those who are able to drive but those who are not able to drive who need assistance. That is why we took the decision to introduce the mobility allowance—in order greatly to increase the assistance available to disabled people. I have already said that with regard to other vehicles I expect to make a statement before the House rises for the recess. I have now said that three times, and I hope that Conservative Members will not press me further.

Trent Regional Health Authority

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he will take to bring about an equalisation of resources available to the Trent Regional Health Authority as against other regional hospital authority areas in England.

Mr. Moyle: The Government are committed to achieving a fairer distribution

of resources between health regions in England and will seek to redistribute funds in favour of deprived regions, such as the Trent Region, as quickly as is consistent with the preservation of important services in other regions. In the current year Trent received an increase in revenue funds equal to 2·94 per cent., compared to 0·25 per cent. to 0·40 per cent. for the Thames Region and Oxford.

Mr. Whitehead: Should not those figures, and the comparison with the Thames Region, be set against the disparity that at the moment gives the Thames Region 70 per cent. more medical and dental staff, 30 per cent. more nurses and only one-third as many people waiting for more than a year for general surgery? Is it not true that at the rate of progress we are making towards equalisation it will be a whole generation before the despair and demoralisation in the Trent Region is worn away? Is that satisfactory?

Mr. Moyle: I am not prepared to redistribute resources away from the London Region at a rate that will damage the teaching facilities there, because that would be damaging the seed corn for the future. My hon. Friend's comments about the rate of equalisation between various parts of the country were extremely pessimistic, and I would not like to stand by them.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I accept the need for resources in the Trent authority, but is the Minister aware of the needs of the North-West authority, particularly in relation to the rate of pay for ambulance men and the need of the authority to meet that rate of pay? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Minister has taken out a court injunction to prevent the unions from appearing before the Central Arbitration Committee? If there is no truth in that, since it has been widely reported in the Northern Press will he take this opportunity to deny it?

Mr. Moyle: The second part of the hon. Member's question is without foundation. The first part does not relate to the Trent region, or its health authority, but I take this opportunity to point out that the North-West Regional Health Authority has had the largest growth in funds of any region—3·2 per cent.

Mr. Woodall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the severe shortage of psycho-geriatrics facilities in the Trent Region, particularly in the Sheffield-Barnsley-Rotherham area? Recently I had to seek the good offices of the Wakefield area in the York Region in order to find a hospital bed for a constituent. In that case, every medical opinion that was sought recommended hospitalisation, but a bed could not be found in the area designated.

Mr. Moyle: There is a shortage of facilities in the Trent Regional Health Authority. That is why we are putting a disproportionate amount of resources into that authority, compared with others. The shortage of psycho-geriatric beds is a national problem. I have visited the area referred to by my hon. Friend and have looked at the problem there.

Mr. Finsberg: Will the Minister resist the temptation to introduce proposals to ruin the provisions for the hospital service in the London area and thus make it impossible to persuade people to come here from overseas for training and as patients?

Mr. Moyle: We must reconcile the desire to move quickly to a fairer distribution with the need to allow the better-off regions more time to make their plans for rationalisation and redeployment of their resources, and the freedom to manouvre. We must be careful to see that funds are not moved so quickly that it will do irreparable damage to the provision of clinical teaching facilities in the better-off regions.

Mr. Boscawen: Will the Minister make sure that there is no detriment to the better-off regions because they are more efficient and wise in the use of their resources?

Mr. Moyle: This is not a matter of wisdom or efficiency: it is a matter of historical favouritism. Obviously, I want to look after the teaching facilities in London and see that they are not damaged.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act

Mr. Budgen: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the implementation and continued operation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.

Mr. Ennals: I am satisfied that a very large number of disabled people have benefited in real and practical ways from the provision of the Act, ranging from the specific services under Section 2 to the extensive provisions under Sections 4 to 7, concerning access. The Act has been of help to millions of handicapped people. In the case of Section 2 alone, 300,000 households with disabled people were helped in the year 1975–76 with appliances, telephones and adaptations to property, and 101,000 people with holidays. Expenditure on aids, adaptations to homes and telephones rose from about £2·8 million in 1972–73 to about £8·8 million in 1975–76. It is difficult even to estimate the large numbers of people who have been helped by improved access facilities under the provisions of Sections 4 to 8 of the Act. They would possibly have to be numbered in millions.

Mr. Budgen: Does the Secretary of State agree that the lesson to be drawn for the future is that legislation of this sort should not be enacted unless the necessary funds are available to implement it? Does he further agree that this Act has caused a great deal of overwork in social services departments, and has also caused much misery through unfulfilled expectations among a wide section of the population?

Mr. Ennals: My main conclusion is entirely different. It is that the Act has revolutionised the attitude of the public towards disabled people in this country. It has led to local authorities throughout the country providing assistance to the disabled that was never provided before.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does the Secretary of State agree that the weakness in the Act is that it does not define sufficiently what is meant by "need" for the disabled? This has resulted in a situation in which enlightened authorities are making much greater provision than others. In fact, some authorities have diminished the definition of need and are providing less than they were a year ago, because of the public expenditure cuts. Is this not a breach of the Act?

Mr. Ennals: It would be extremely difficult to define need by legislation. Obviously, this is a matter of subjective judgment by doctors and social workers.

TUC

Ql. Mr. Wrigglesworth: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) on 3rd February.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When the Prime Minister does meet the TUC will he discuss the recent speculation about the future of public service pensions? Many pensioners in the public sector are anxious about reports that the Government may not uphold commitments under the 1971 Act made by the former Conservative Government in this matter. At a time when all the forecasts show that prices are going down while incomes are going up, would it not be nonsense to introduce legislation to do away with this commitment?

The Prime Minister: I saw the report in one of the newspapers. I can assure my hon. Friend that there are no proposals for modifying the Pensions Increase Act of 1971. The increases will go ahead in accordance with that Act.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the Prime Minister agree that the first item on the agenda when he meets the TUC should be the alarming increase in teenage unemployment today? Unless more effective action is taken in this regard, it will prove to be one of the worst economic and social problems facing the country.

The Prime Minister: Yes. This is a matter that is frequently discussed between Ministers and representatives of the TUC and others. The Government are now considering what steps should be taken in response to the Holland Report before the rest of the schemes run out, as they will do in the not-too-distant future. Discussion on this matter will take place, as well, at the European Council when it meets next week. I hope that more funds can be devoted to the budget of the Social Fund in order to provide training or further education for these young

people. This is a most serious problem and the right. hon. Gentleman is right to press it continually.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious unemployment prospects facing the Northern Region—not just in relation to the matter on which he must be bored with hearing from me but in the shipbuilding industry, which will be suffering from order book problems in the early autumn? There are also the problems of Plesseys and a number of other serious industrial difficulties that need the Government's urgent attention.

The Prime Minister: The position in the shipbuilding industry has been foreseen for some time. That is why action has been taken in connection with the Japanese shipbuilding industry. Sufficient orders are not coming through at present, and of those that are coming through the Japanese industry is taking a disproportionate share in relation to the facilities that exist in the world for building ships. There have been discussions on this matter with the Japanese, and the European Council has also discussed it, because it affects the whole of Europe.

Mr. Prior: When, on Saturday, the Prime Minister announced that better times were coming, had he in mind the fact that there would be an additional 35,000 people unemployed this month and that an additional 100,000 unemployed school leavers would now be on the list? What does he intend to do about the situation, and how can he go about the country saying that better times are coming when the results show quite the opposite?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that if we can hold the position on incomes—[HON. MEMBERS: "If."]—yes, "if"—the prospects for this country for 1978 to 1982 will be better than they have been for many decades. Despite what the right hon. Gentleman said, nothing can alter that fact. That is why I place so much importance on not having a runaway increase in incomes in the next 12 months.

NEWCASTLE

Mr. Crawford: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Newcastle.

The Prime Minister: I visited Newcastle with President Carter on 6th May I have at present no plans for a further visit.

Mr. Crawford: When the Prime Minister next visits Newcastle, will he take the occasion to remind Labour Members there that their vote against the establishment of a Scottish Assembly meant that they were reneging on the Labour Party's General Election pledge to establish such an assembly? In view of the Labour Government's inability to honour their pledges, will the right hon. Gentleman resign, call a General Election, and enable the people of Scotland to say what they think about Scottish Government via a General Election?

The Prime Minister: That is a very interesting proposition. In view of the fact that the Conservative Party clearly has no intention of pursuing any Scottish devolution, the hon. Gentleman is correct in assuming that a Labour Government will be returned who will be enabled to put their devolution plans through. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to convince people in various parts of England, and not only those in Newcastle, that devolution for Scotland is not just pandering to nationalism it will be necessary to introduce a vital and productive scheme for devolution to the English regions as well?

The Prime Minister: The position of the English regions has been discussed in the Green Paper issued recently, but Government legislation for Scotland will have to be introduced and we shall ask Parliament to pass it on the next occasion.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Wherever the Prime Minister next plans to visit, will he combine business with pleasure and make sure that his visit is part of his General election campaign?

The Prime Minister: Having had a fruitful visit to Exeter, where the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-

Hyslop) was kind enough and courteous enough to receive me and pay tribute to the work I had done, I should be happy to visit his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), although on that occasion we would not find ourselves on the same side of the barricades.

PRESIDENT CARTER

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet President Carter.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for a meeting with President Carter.

Mr. Adley: When the Prime Minister meets President Carter will he tell him that those of us who are concerned about the future of Concorde and its landing rights thoroughly disapprove of the President's feigned lack of interest in the question and his deliberate refusal to uphold his responsibility, as President, for enforcing federal treaties? Will he tell the President that we note the marked discrepancy between his words and his deeds, and further inform the President that the British and French Governments regard his position as hostile to the interests of those two countries?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what response such a speech would be given, but I cannot think that it would be very persuasive, if the hon. Gentleman is still hoping, as I hope, that Concorde will be allowed to land in New York. I suggest that the tactics should be a little better designed than are those put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Since Britain has decided to join the vital talks between the United States and Russia to stop all nuclear test explosions and thereby slow down the nuclear arms race, would it not be helpful for the Prime Minister now to tell President Carter that we intend to cancel the proposed underground test at Nevada, otherwise it will undermine our credibility and the success of the talks?

The Prime Minister: I shall not comment on the newspaper report to which my hon. Friend refers, but I doubt whether our credibility would be reduced as long as the Soviet Union and the


United States maintained their test explosions. It would indeed need agreement between all three Powers if it were to become really effective.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to decide to see President Carter this week he might well find no scheduled air service between the two countries? Has he been in recent touch with President Carter to see whether the log-jam of these negotiations could be broken, since they are now at a very late stage indeed, to the great danger of trade between our two countries?

The Prime Minister: I was in touch with President Carter at the end of last week, but I have not been in touch with him since, in person, although exchanges are taking place and negotiations will continue. We have constantly taken the view that it would be almost unthinkable to believe that this air service could be broken off in this way. That is why we shall continue to negotiate up to the last moment. There is a certain minimum position that a country must take in its air service. We are getting closer to agreement. That was the last report I had this morning. I hope that the negotiations will be completed satisfactorily.

Mr. John Mendelson: While inevitably there are problems directly affecting the relations between Britain and the United States, and although there is general confidence in the way in which my right hon Friend the Prime Minister and the Government are handling these relations, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that there is widespread support for Jimmy Carter's fight for human rights and civil rights and that that fight has the support of the nation, particularly in view of the unjustifiable attacks made on the President?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a speech on this subject a few weeks ago and expressed the Government's position fully and adequately. During the discussions that are now proceeding in Belgrade to arrange the agenda for the further exchanges that will take place, our position will be made absolutely clear.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In leading up to those discussions, will the Prime Minister make plain to President Carter

and the United States Government the mounting threat to the United Kingdom and Western Europe arising from the developing and increasing Soviet influence in Africa, which has now been extended to the Horn of Africa, with the developments involving Cuban troops and advisers to the Marxist Ethiopian Government?

The Prime Minister: The position of the Soviet Union in Africa is the subject of constant discussion between the United States and a number of European countries. Clearly, the Soviet Union has as legitimate a right as any other country to try to improve its relations, but that right is called into question when it comes to supplying arms and attempting to suborn Governments in that area. That has been made clear to the Soviet Union.

Oral Answers to Questions — BANKS AND INSURANCE COMPANIES

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether his Government have any plans to introduce legislation to nationalise the banks and insurance companies.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: In view of the divided views in the Cabinet on this subject, will this be another matter on which the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility is likely to be suspended? Is the Prime Minister aware that he is the first Prime Minister since Ramsay MacDonald to have suspended that doctrine? In the meantime, are we to expect the right hon. Gentleman to go on building on that reputation?

The Prime Minister: I do not intend to put to the Cabinet any proposal to nationalise the banks and insurance companies. Therefore, this matter hardly arises.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in earlier years I worked for many years for an insurance company and at one time was a research officer for the National Union of Bank Employees and editor of the Bank Officer? Is he also aware that on close acquaintanceship with both industries I became convinced that both were very good candidates for nationalisation?

The Prime Minister: These confessions of my hon. Friend's youthful indiscretions——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Boastful.

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend is boasting of his indiscretions, who am I to deny him that pleasure? Certainly there is a lot that needs to be reviewed in the matter of banks and insurance companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because no instrument in this world, under heaven, is entirely perfect. That is why the committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is now reviewing these issues, and we wait the report with great interest.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Prime Minister agree that to say that a lot of things should be looked into will cause upset and unrest? Does he feel that it is right to hide behind the committee's report? Should he not spell out what he means if he is going to come out with bold but unjustified statements along those lines?

The Prime Minister: Upset and unrest were caused when it was thought possible that there was to be a General Election that the Conservative Party might win. A tremendous amount was struck off securities then. I am sure that my words will not have that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That the matter of the Northern Ireland Gas Industry, being a matter relating exclusively to Northern Ireland, be referred to the Northern Ireland Committee.—[Mr. Foot.]

INWARD INVESTMENT BOARD

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members please leave the Chamber quietly. I suggest that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) waits a moment before speaking.

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for an Inward Investment Board.
The reason for bringing this Bill forward is that inward investment into the United Kingdom has become massive. In 1974 it amounted to £2·28 billion, in 1975 it was £1·80 billion and in 1976 it increased again to £2·12 billion. There seems to be an idea in this country that all investment is good and that there is no difference between domestic investment and that from overseas. Other countries do not have such a rosy picture of investment, particularly inward investment. If we followed the example of other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, we should be setting up an inward investment board. All those countries have such a body which monitors investment coming in from outside to discover whether it is good or bad.
We need such a board even more than most countries because of the number of multinational companies that operate in this country. It is quite obvious to anyone who examines the matter that investment by multinational companies is quite different from domestic investment. We must ask ourselves why such investment is made. There is no rule applied about why a multinational company may decide to invest in this country rather than any other. We should ask ourselves why the investment is made. Is it to make a profit, to establish a staging post as a loss operation, for transfer pricing or do such companies come to this country to take advantage of any regional aids or incentives? The problem can be summed up by saying that multinaional companies are global optimisers. They are like the atoms in a molecule. They come in and change the molecule slightly and then go away again. We should put a stop to such operations.
If we examine the investment that is coming into this country, we discover that much is being put into property and gambling, that some goes into manufacturing, and that a lot of it—and one must admit that the same can be said of domestic investment—is candyfloss investment. No examination is made to discover whether the inward investment is good for the nation as a whole. But we should do that because in the past—and I expect that it will continue in the future—companies have entered the country to act as Trojan horses. A company can set up a factory in this country and take over the


market by selling at a loss. Once it has captured the market—often with Government help—it can then withdraw and import all that it requires into the market because it has destroyed the home industry. That can no longer be tolerated.
Before I came to the House today I looked up the ways in which we examine new investment. The existing mechanisms for examining such investment are diffuse, weak and basically financial rather than resource orientated. There are 10 bodies involved in such examination, but only one of them, the Foreign Exchange Control Committee, has any power over virgin investment, and that body is generally concerned about takeovers. The criteria that it uses are not generally known because they are not published. I suggest that they are financial criteria, because this is one of the quickest acting of all the Government bodies. However, I am as much in the dark as other hon. Members about the criteria—as indeed are the companies that wish to invest in this country.
Whenever any control is attempted over inward investment it is unenforceable. We need only to cast our minds back to what happened about Chrysler and Rootes and about Philips and Pye to realise that not much notice is taken of whatever is said. The Stener Report commented on this four years ago:
The major conclusion which emerges is that the existing institutional arrangements in the United Kingdom are not adequate for properly monitoring the activities of foreign-owned firms.
That was four years ago, yet no steps have been taken. The only thing that has happened is that the Labour Party Programme 1976—and I know that the Labour Party Treasurer, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is listening—argued for a board to perform this and other such functions. I and some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), attacked the Hitachi case where a company wishes to come into this country to manufacture television sets. We do not know the criteria that are being applied. Is the company's proposal being examined from the point of view of job creation and loss, because such things should be looked at? Will such a company create a few hundred

jobs in this country at the expense of the loss of many thousands of jobs in the domestic industry? That is the sort of case that an inward investment board should examine, and with those criteria in mind.
We have already seen examples of such a case with Litton Industries and Imperial Typewriters. The factory eventually closed and many people were thrown out of work. The philosophy of the board in examining such matters should be the same as that of the Canadian board. It should consider what would be the significant benefit to the economy of the country and whether any damage to existing industry would be caused. Some of my hon. Friends are saying that the social benefit should also be considered, and it is indeed absolutely imperative that we should look at the social benefit.
At present, no criteria are applied except financial criteria and the belief that all investment must be good for the economy of this country. That is wrong, and I hope that the House will agree to set up an inward investment board and will bear in mind that it is no use having new investment that will create 50 jobs in our economy today, only for us to find a few months later that we are losing 500 or more jobs.
Any Government that terms itself Socialist must plan inward investment, and that is why it is urgent that we should follow the example of other countries and set up this board without further delay.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. John MacGregor: Mr. John MacGregor (Norfolk, South) rose——

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to oppose the Bill?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of the heavy business ahead of us, I shall do so briefly. I shall give three reasons, in ascending order of importance, why it would be wrong to allow the Bill to be brought in.
First, we all agree that we need as much new investment as we can get. This is one of our major problems. The use made of existing investment is an even more serious problem, but there is general agreement that we want much greater investment. The speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr.


Hoyle) was so unbalanced that he drew attention to a few cases, some of which could be much disputed, but gave no indication of the enormous benefits that foreign investment has brought here in the past 30 years. We should be grateful for that investment.
It is strange that, in their paranoia about multinational companies, hon. Members opposite of the persuasion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne are prepared to accept all the benefits of North Sea oil and the enormous investment that multinational companies are continuing to put into that, yet continually deride those companies for their work.
We receive benefits not just in terms of investment and jobs—though they are extremely important in the overall balance—but because foreign investment has also given us more new and lasting jobs than the job creation scheme and other schemes contrived by the Government. They often bring other benefits, too. I shall refer to only one. They bring better management techniques to the running of companies in this country. I have a good example in my constituency of a foreign-controlled company that admittedly came here partly on financial criteria—to make a profit; and how right the company was to do that—but at the same time brought new management techniques and is among the best employers in my constituency, having lifted the whole atmosphere of employee relations compared with some more traditional firms.
It needs to be put on the record that many overseas companies who have brought in domestic subsidiaries and massive investment are among the best employers in this country. It is too simplistic to suggest that, shortly after coming here, some overseas companies declare redundancies. There are cases where this has happened many years after the initial investment, but it is frequently because of technological changes, and if the company had remained in the hands of a United Kingdom board of directors the same difficulties over redundancies would have arisen. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the Pye company, and that is a good example of what I have been saying.
I want to see more foreign as well as domestic investment and for us to put the minimum number of extra obstacles—and

I emphasise "extra"—in the way of those new investments. The proposed board would be yet another contribution to frightening them away from this country at a time when overseas confidence in the United Kingdom is so fragile. The Bill is another example of the fortress mentality of the Left and is similar to its constant demands for import controls as a way of solving our problems. I hope that the House will make it clear that it does not support this mentality.
My second reason for opposing the Bill is that we have a wider range of controls than the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne suggested. He failed to mention the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the fact that when regional grants and aids or other grants are sought by overseas subsidiary companies, the Government and their Departments have control of over what the companies do with the grants. I have another example of this near my constituency. A recent potential takeover by an American firm was referred to the Commission to make sure that a proper view was taken of the whole operation. There are existing controls, and I do not want to see them added to by a much bigger new board.
My final and most important reason is my objection to the rationale behind the introduction of the Bill by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. The hon. Gentleman made his motives clear. He objects to regional aids going to companies bringing in their own investment. He objects to their making profits and building up their operations and providing new jobs for this country and is deeply paranoid about multinational companies.
I am not suggesting that everything is perfect, but the objective of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is to bring in a totally different system under which all investment would be directed by himself and his friends for political reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear his hon. Friends making that clear by their response to what I have said. They would direct investment for political reasons and not for reasons of profit, the creation of lasting jobs or anything of that sort. When hon. Members opposite talk about social return, they forget that they will frighten any new investors if they see that the trend in this


country is towards the direction of investment for purely political reasons. We shall not get the creation of lasting jobs in that way.
The Bill is part of a whole trend. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and his friends want to nationalise the banks and insurance companies so that their investment funds can be directed by a small group of politicians. They want to get a trade union majority on the boards of occupational pensions funds for the same purpose. They believe in much higher taxation of profitable firms so that the resources can go to organisations that they run rather than on ensuring that investment is properly directed. They are arguing the case for an inward investment board on the same grounds—that existing institutions have failed and that they would know how to control them better.
This is not the moment to go into the whole question of what is before the Committee set up under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), but it is interesting to note that most of the organisations giving

Division No. 156]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Ashley, Jack
Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max


Atkinson, Norman
Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bates, Alf
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marks, Kenneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Dr John
Maynard, Miss Joan


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mendelson, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Ted
Mikardo Ian


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Miller Dr M. S (E Kilbride)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grocott, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy William


Canavan, Dennis
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Carmichael, Neil
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble Mike


Cartwright, John
Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clemitson, Ivor
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Huckfield, Les
Pavitt, Laurie


concannon, J. D.




Conlan, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, John


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cowans Harry
Hunter, Adam
Radice, Giles


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Davidson Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davies Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jones, Dan (Burnley
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dempsey, James
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Doig, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J.W.


Dormand, J. D.
Kilroy-SiIk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Eadie Alex
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Edge, Geoff
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Selby, Harry


English, Michael
Lipton, Marcus
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh
Sillars, James

evidence to that Committee are drawing attention to the true reasons that investment is not taking place on the scale required, one of the most important of which is the dramatic decline in the rate of return on capital, which gives no encouragement to investors to invest, and not to this sort of spurious reason.

I hope that the Bill will not be supported by the Government and will not be part of the Lib-Lab pact. I hope that the Liberals will not support it. I shall divide the House in an attempt to prevent leave being given to introduce the Bill, thus enabling potential overseas investors to see that the trend of thinking to which I have referred does not have the support of the House and will not be part of British policy for the next 10 or 20 years at least.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 161 Noes 176.

Silverman, Julius
Tierney, Sydney
White, James (Pollok)


Skinner, Dennis
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Small, William
Torney, Tom
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Snape, Peter
Tuck, Raphael
Woodall, Alec


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwrighl, Edwin (Dearne V)
Woof, Robert


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stoddart, David
Ward, Michael



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swain, Thomas
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Ron Thomas and


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Weltzman, David
Mr. Stan Thorne.


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, Frank R. (Bury)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Harvie Anderson, Rt Kon Miss
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hayhoe, Barney
Prior, Rt Hon James


Awdry, Daniel
Hicks, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hlggins, Terence L.
Raison, Timothy


Berry, Hon Anthony
Holland, Philip
Rathbone, Tim


Biffen, John
Hordern, Peter
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blaker, Peter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Body, Richard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kurd, Douglas
Rhodes James, R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rlfklnd, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brooke, Peter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Knox, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Churchill, W. S.
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Lawson, Nigel
Shersby, Michael


Clegg, Walter
Le Merchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Cockcroft, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Costain, A. P.
Macfarlane, Nell
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Crawford, Douglas
MacKay, Andrew James
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Spence, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Drayson, Burnaby
Marten, Neil
Sproat, lain


Durant, Tony
Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dykes, Hugh
Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Elliott, Sir William
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tebbit, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Moate, Roger
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Monro, Hector
Thompson, George


Fletcher. Alex (Edinburgh N)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Forman, Nigel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Neave, Airey
Wells, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Nelson, Anthony
Wiggln, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
Neubert, Michael
Wlgtey, Dafydd


Goodhew, Victor
Newton, Tony
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Gorst, John
Onslow, Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Page, Richard (Workington)
Younger, Hon George


Grist, Ian
Pardoe, John



Grylls, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hall, Sir John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. Nick Budgen and


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. John MacGregor

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — PRICE COMMISSION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

ALTERATION OF CONSTITUTION ETC. OF COMMISSION

4 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, after 'corporate', insert
'up to 31st July 1978, except that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, which shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, continue the Price Commission in being as a body corporate for a period which begins with the date on which the Commission would otherwise cease, and ends not later than 31st July 1980 and is not longer than one year'.
The purpose of this amendment is to limit the life of the Price Commision to three years at the most and to provide for a procedure during that period whereby there may be a review of the existence of the Price Commission. Its life may be terminated, under the amendment, in any year up to 1980 subject to parliamentary approval.
In Committee we sought to limit the life of the Price Commission to the duration of phase 3 of the pay policy. I make no bones about it: that is what we should still prefer. We believe that there can be no justification for vigorous price and profit controls outside the context of an effective pay policy, especially when there has already been a massive erosion of profits and when there is an urgent need to allow for a substantial recovery of profitability if even the most modest forecasts are to be met, and, above all, when there has been no evidence of widespread or rampant profiteering having taken place. The reverse is true.
In 1974, business and industry were subject to stringent price and profit controls at a time when there was virtually no pay restraint. They have never been given an opportunity to recover the lost profitability of that period. Prices have risen at an horrific rate over the past three years. That has caused, and is

causing, a great deal of hardship. This has occurred for a number of reasons, many of which may be placed straight at the door of the Government but none of which can be attributed to widespread profiteering. It is not surprising that business and industry are desperately anxious to cast off the shackles of price and profit controls and to do away with institutions such as the Price Commission as soon as possible. We should be failing in our duty as a responsible Opposition if we did not voice that concern in the House.
In Committee the Secretary of State strenuously opposed our attempts to limit the life of the Price Commission to one year. His chief argument was rather curious. He said that it would be difficult to find people of the right calibre to take up posts in the Price Commission if they were appointed only for a short period. He followed that remark by appointing somebody for the limited period of two years. I subsequently inquired widely among my friends in business and industry, among people with authority, expertise and talent, and I was told that the reverse is true and that people of this type in business and in industry would have been far more attracted to such a position if it had been for a temporary period or on secondment. Those people might have done it far more cheaply. However, the people of whom I inquired did not necessarily carry the credentials of the Labour Party.
It is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman that when he made his announcement yesterday he did not once pay tribute to Sir Arthur Cockfield who has served the Price Commission faithfully and well, who stayed on for an extra year, and who with one assistant, and for a great deal less money, did the job which four people are now going to do for a great deal more money. I hope that when he replies the Minister will pay due tribute to Sir Arthur Cockfield.
In Committee the Minister protested—this is an important point—that whereas he agreed that there was virtue in having an annual review of the existence of the Price Commission, the need to introduce new legislation altogether, if it were found that the Price Commission has been prematurely abolished, would be far to onerous to contemplate. He contradicted that view a few weeks later, having accepted an


amendment which ended the life of the Price Code next year. He said that it would be easy to reinstate it by means of new legislation if that proved necessary.
Neither of his arguments against that amendment held water. But, to be fair to him, those arguments were directed at our intention to limit the life of the Price Commission to one year. He made it clear that it would never be his intention that the Price Commission's life should be indefinite. Indeed, he made it clear again and again that it was not his intention for the Price Commission to operate counter-inflation powers after 1979 and that after that date the powers vested in the Price Commission would be used solely as an arm of anti-monopoly policy. He went further. He said that by then it would be more appropriate for some of those powers to be vested in existing institutions. That is an important point, because we are talking about existing institutions, not an amalagamation of institutions and not about keeping the Price Commission on and merging it with any other existing institutions. Therefore it seemed to me that we were coming somewhere near to a convergence of views. This amendment, which is a broadened version of that which we moved in Standing Committee, attempts to build on that convergence, to write it into the Bill, and to provide flexibility and realism.
Our amendment is surely acceptable. I do not see how the Secretary of State can resist it after what he said. Nor is it conceivable that it will fail to find favour with the Liberal Party as it is precisely what its spokesman asked for and pledged support for in the debate on Second Reading.
If our amendment is accepted, the Price Commission could either be disbanded at the end of next year, as we think it should be, or it could be continued for a further year or two. We believe that as soon as its purely counter-inflation rôle is ended it would be absurd to keep the huge and expensive panoply of the Price Commission in being. We believe that for a fraction of that cost the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies Commission should be reinforced and strengthened to deal more swiftly and more effectively with monopoly and near-monopoly abuses, to investigate, monitor

and uphold competition in pricing practice.
That fits in almost exactly with what the Minister said in Standing Committee. He said it so often that it is worth quoting some of his statements. In the final sitting of Standing Committee B he said that he regarded the powers in the Bill as a short-term weapon in the anti-inflation policy and a long-term weapon in the anti-monopoly policy. That is precisely what I have said.
Referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) he said that he wanted to see those powers as an element in anti-monopoly policy. The Secretary of State said:
Well, so do I in the long term.
As I said on Second Reading, I can conceive of a situation in which these powers are used for that purpose, and that purpose alone, when inflation is under control'.
Speaking of me at the same sitting, he said:
But what I shall say, for as long as and as often as the hon. Lady might like to hear me say it, is that when we do bring inflation down to the level of our competitors
—which we all know will be at the end of next year, according to the Prime Minister—
I want to see these powers used for their competition purposes."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10th May 1977; c. 29.]
Earlier he said that he believed that when we had conquered inflation in this country the power to investigate and to freeze ought to be a weapon in our anti-monopoly policy.
At the first sitting of the Standing Committee, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, the right hon. Gentleman said that there was virtue in having an annual review of these matters. I agree. Nothing could be clearer than the right hon. Gentleman's statement in Standing Committee. I shall be interested to hear what objections the Minister may have to this amendment—if, indeed, he has any objections. As I said, I do not know how he could possibly resist the amendment. If he has any objections, I shall be interested to hear them.
I believe that the only difference between us is the date on which this should occur. We both have the same purpose in the end and we differ only on the


date. Our amendment seeks to meet that point by allowing flexibility on precisely that point, up to 1980. After that, it would be intolerable for the Price Commission to remain in existence with its present powers, which have the potential to exacerbate the great damage which has already been done to business and industry, particularly if they continue to operate longer than would otherwise be the case, because of the indefinite institution of the Price Commission.
It is very difficult to debate the amendment without reminding the House of the wide, ill-defined, arbitrary, discretionary powers which are vested in the Price Commission under the Bill. It would be wrong not to warn the House of the real danger to business confidence and investment and of the wide uncertainty which will continue if these powers are prolonged further than the date which I have set—all the more so because of what we consider to be the inadequacy of the proposed safeguards. We shall deal with all these points more fully and appropriately on later amendments, but they are relevant to a discussion of how long a Price Commission with such powers should remain in being.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will say, as he said in Committee, that he is not averse to an amalgamation of existing institutions or an annual review of the institution of the Price Commission. But if so, it is absolutely essential that business and industry should be given a definite date beyond which they can know for certain that they will be free from price and profit controls and that the latest possible date is 1980. This, of course, brings me to the fatal flaw in a later Liberal amendment: it does not contain a definite final date, so it will perpetuate the uncertainties in business and industry.
Many people in business and industry would say that our suggestion is far too late and that the amendment is too moderate. I have much sympathy with that view, but at least if they knew that the end was in sight, forward planning would not be as completely shattered as it is at present. After all, profit margin control, as such, under the Price Code, is to end next year, a decision which we believe to be right. Our amendment, which provides for the possibility of ending the rest of

the counter-inflation price and profit controls at the same time, is consistent with that decision.
The Secretary of State, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have all confidently predicted that inflation will be down to the levels of our competitors by the end of next year. Our amendment allows them two years longer, in keeping with the margin of error which they have already shown in their counter-inflation predictions. If the Secretary of State—who, when yawning, does not look very pretty, by the way—does not accept our amendment, that will be taken as an implication that inflation may still be very high by the end of 1980, and that will, indeed, be a spine-chilling prospect.
The Secretary of State expressed in Committee the view that the life of the Price Commission should be finite and he has agreed that an annual review would be a good thing, while the Liberal spokesman actually called for an amendment to that end. It would therefore be inconsistent of the right hon. Gentleman and positively pusillanimous of the Liberal Party not to support the amendment.
However, we learn from The Guardian of yesterday, from an article by the business editor, that the attitude of the Liberals to this amendment is not as favourable as one might have expected from their contribution on Second Reading. Whether or not it is a correct attribution, The Guardian said:
The Liberals regard this
—that is, this amendment—
as a deferred wrecking of the Bill, since it would encourage business men to put off proposed price increases in the hope that, with or without a change of Government, the powers of the Commission might cease".
That is an original and interesting view. Yet the Liberal spokesman said on Second Reading:
I believe that the Bill should last for one year only
—I ask my hon. Friends to note the word "only"—
and I shall support amendments to that effect".—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1307.]
4.15 p.m.
I find it very sad to contemplate the spectacle of the Liberal Party disintegrating into the role of parliamentary harlotry, which is what its stance on this


matter must inevitably be. The Liberals were obviously short of good advice from their good friends when they entered their unholy alliance or they would have been told that if you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not comparing the Labour Party with dogs. I consider dogs to be noble creatures and I am fond of them. I was simply using the old adage to illustrate the point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I accept the hon. Lady's assurance, so long as there is no implication that the occupant of the Chair has fleas.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I assure you, Sir, that that is not the case. Dogs, of which I am very fond, occasionally have fleas. I am not particularly fond of the Labour Party and I cannot say whether they have them or not. That implication was not my intention and I should have to apologise to all the dogs in the country if it were.
If the Liberal Party does not support the amendment and the Secretary of State does not accept it, business and industry will not be subjected to much more uncertainty than is necessary and a high price will have to be paid for that in terms of unemployment and investment.
I commend the amendment to the House. It is the very least that should be done to try to restore some of the lost confidence in business and industry, and we urge the Secretary of State to accept it.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We must go a little further on this amendment than my hon. Friend has suggested. We are now dealing with a very different animal from the Price Commission that it is intended to replace. The Secretary of State made it clear in Committee that he was concerned to find a pattern appropriate to this country and modelled to some extent on the pricing legislation in Australia or Canada, but neither of those countries and no other industrial country of which I am aware has a pattern of prices legislation similar to that proposed in the Bill.
The power to freeze and the time for which prices may be frozen are substantially greater under these proposals than under the legislation of Australia, Canada or any country of Western Europe. The

voluntary principle, which has been of great importance in this country in the stabilisation of prices, plays a substantial part in most prices legislation in other markets.
In Australia, there is a voluntary arrangement under which prices are frozen for 21 days. Here, we have a statutory requirement that they be frozen for 28 days. In Australia, there is a voluntary agreement that after an investigation there may or may not be a freeze. Here, there is a requirement that there must be a freeze if the price investigated is found to be at fault with the regulations. A freeze in this country can extend for a considerable time. It is this characteristic above all that has given us and many people outside the greatest anxiety.
It is not just a matter of seeking to compare the Bill with the legislation of other countries; it is very much a matter of a different principle behind the Bill. The Bill is designed to freeze prices under criteria that we shall discuss later and to give the Commission substantial powers.
The amendment suggests a regular review in 1978 and in 1979, with a terminal date of 1980. We have arrived at that point not by luck but because it seems to us that there should be a review of these substantial powers when they have operated for a reasonable period. One year is quite reasonable, because prices legislation has been reviewed regularly. Under the old arrangements, under the 1973 Act, when the Pay and Price Codes were joint bulwarks of that legislation, there was a regular review of the operation of both codes. That Act provided for a regular reporting to Parliament by the Price Commission. It is noteworthy that in Committee we took some time to persuade the Government that regular reporting of the Price Commission's activities was a good thing.
As for the freeze powers under this proposal, there can be little doubt that if there were no review within 12 months the workings of the Commission could be grossly injurious to industry. When all is said and done, at this time hon. Members on both sides of the House will be acutely concerned not to provide industry with another major problem which might injure investment and employment. Therefore, a review over the two-year period


covering 1978 and 1979 seems to us to be wholly compatible with at least the Secretary of State's initial objective—to find a way in which the new Price Commission, with its new powers, may be seen to be acting fairly and in harmony with the objects set out in Clause 2.
We then come to the question of the terminal date. My hon. Friend has dealt fully with the question of the importance that we attach to showing industry that it can be confident that these powers are not permanent. During the past few weeks, the Secretary of State has found it necessary to concede the question of dividend and profit control and those powers under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 which relate to wages policy. He conceded it, as I recall, very much in the context of believing that it was necessary to state a terminal date so that people outside the House, particularly in the trade union movement, could see that the ability to discipline manufacturers and employers, because they might be exceeding the wages policy, was dead. The TUC was also anxious to see that section of that Act removed, because it removed with it the suggestion that there could be statutory wages policies. Surely, exactly the same criterion applies to the major powers of the Price Commission. There should be a terminal date.
The Secretary of State has consistently argued that he sees a necessity for, as he puts it, permanent and positive powers. If that is so, it is reasonable to ask him what is the evidence that requires him to take that view. We have been able to show that the voluntary nature of previous prices policies was important. In 1972–73, there was a period of nearly 18 months' voluntary prices restraint by the top 200 companies listed in membership of the CBI. They kept prices to within 5 per cent. of the start date figure voluntarily. I stress "voluntarily".
Despite the major powers in the Prices Act 1974, which now begin to lapse, there has been little indication of any company—certainly any category 1 company—exceeding its references and of the Commission's having to take action over an incorrect price. I think that there have been only seven or eight such cases in which the Commission has had to take further action in support of the code. The reason is that throughout British

industry there has been a willingness to co-operate voluntarily with the Government of the day in achieving their objectives in running the Price Commission. It is true that the legislation, when revised by this Government, contained penalties, but it is not true to suggest that there is any evidence that British industry requires to have penalties attached to the legislation—that it requires to have a legislative framework placed upon it because it has not been able to co-operate voluntarily in the monitoring and handling of prices policies.
We are left with the conclusion that the Government seek to make these powers permanent and to have major forces of law behind them because they are unwilling to rely on the voluntary principle. That suggests to me that they want to use these powers strongly, that they want to use them to their fullest effect and, therefore, to the greatest detriment of industry.
It is to try to change that objective, to try to confine the Government to a legitimate period, such as two years, that we seek to make the amendment and bring the Act, in relation to the powers of the Commission, into line with the stand already taken by the Secretary of State in the matter of profits, dividends and wages control. If we do that—if we make the powers of the Commission lapse by 1980—we shall be going a long way to restore industrial confidence, which is an extremely laudable objective.

Mr. Michael Neubert: In considering the purposes of the amendment we must have regard to the institution of the Price Commission, because it is a very recent acquisition to the government scene. It was only in 1973 that it was conceived and brought into being as part of a twin policy of trying to contain wages and prices. Since then, the structure has been undermined. Part of it has been knocked down, and the Price Commission remains as a ruined tower forming part of the twin edifice first set up by the Conservative Government of 1970–74. It has remained an anomaly on the Whitehall scene ever since.
The Pay Board was brought to an end very quickly after the arrival of the Labour Government, as part of their placatory action to honour their undertakings to the trade unions, which did not


wish to see such a body exercising control over wages. For over a year we had wages uncontrolled and out of control, leading to average increases of up to 35 per cent. Therefore, the Government were obliged to intervene, in August 1975, with a counter-inflation policy that has exercised restraint over wages ever since.
But now, after less than two years, the explosive forces on the wages front which led to the creation of the Pay Board, part of the twin structure of which the Price Commission was the other part, are again beginning to become uncontainable. The Government are already under severe pressure in continuing such restraint. Pay restraint is another aspect of prices. The price of labour is perhaps the most important price of all, certainly in labour-intensive industries. We have the irony that three years on from the abolition of the Pay Board we are still arguing whether the other twin tower of the original structure, the Price Commission, should be allowed to remain.
It seems consistent that we should try to put a limited life on the Price Commission. We recognise that if there is to be restraint, there must be restraint all round. We cannot have one sector of the economy—wages—running rip while the other is controlled, because that has a disturbing and damaging effect, particularly on employment. Equally, we cannot control wages and not prices.
While we, as Conservatives, would instinctively not welcome the institution of controls of this character on either front, it seems absolute nonsense to have one without the other. As with Siamese twins, killing off one calls into question the survival of the other, and so it should be with the Price Commission, the Pay Board having long since gone. But there is an argument for retaining the year's lease of life for the Commission, which we commend in the amendment, because we understand that at this critical time the Government are endeavouring once again to negotiate wage restraint with the unions. To do that, they must have something to offer. Our criticism in the past has been that all too frequently the Government have given massively and received only a limited response. They have acceded to the negotiating demands of the organised trade unions to the extent of doing damage not only to the Government's strate-

gic economic policy but to the members of the trade unions themselves.
4.30 p.m.
We think it absolute folly that the proposal should be that the Price Commission should remain, that it should have a permanently constituted basis, that it should be part of the Whitehall superstructure for as long as one can see, and that it should be part of the career progress of many civil servants. Although it has a detached existence, obviously there is secondment between these institutions. We are now creating a new calibre of man—a man who is prepared to see the height of his commercial or business career as the head of a body committed as the Secretary of State has indicated, to a positive belief in the benefits of Government intervention in the economy. That, of course, is anathema to us.
We are arguing whether the Price Commission should continue. It is proposed that it should do so for another year, and should thereafter be renewable. This seems to us to make sense, because the Government are poised on the brink, as they hope, of a third stage of the pay restraint contract—the social contract—with the unions.
The Government seem to be throwing away one of their strongest negotiating cards by saying that the Price Commission, willy-nilly, whether or not there is agreement on further wage restraint, will be continued. In other words, the strongest card in the Government's hand—their ability to control prices, or, as we would put it, their ability to seem to control prices—is put to one side as not being part of the hand that is being dealt at present between the Government, the TUC and the CBI.
The CBI is naturally very worried. It sees expectations of higher wage awards being made with no strong counteracting effort being made by the Government to contain those expectations. There is a general understanding amongst employed people that for the third year the limitations will not be as strict as before, although we know that in economic terms they should and must be.
As a result, the trend in the Government's pattern of progress is running towards higher wage control. Yet we see that the Price Commission is to be established permanently and therefore is no


longer, one imagines, to be part of the bargaining between the Government and the TUC. This seems to be crass ineptitude at best and folly at worst, because it would be a very powerful argument to the trade unions, in seeking further restraint from them, that it would be conditional upon their agreement that the Price Commission remains.
Our proposal is that the Price Commission should exist up to the middle of 1978 and thereafter possibly for another couple of years, but that it should be renewable only as part of an annual strategy. Just as we normally have the Budget annually in April, so it seems that under this Government there is to be the regular summer ritual of an agreement with the TUC, based, on the one hand, on continuing pay restraint on its side and, on the Government's side, on the social wage, increases in social welfare benefits, food subsidies—which have now been abandoned—and price controls.
That being so, we think that there should be no element of permanency in the Price Commission. We understand that the Government would have great difficulty in recruiting to the numerous staff of that Commission—up to 600 or more—people who thought it had a future unless they gave some degree of permanency to it.
Surely it is possible to discuss on the Floor of the House of Commons the question whether the very real disadvantages that are implied by price control intervention should be counterbalanced by equivalent gains on the wages front. If we do not hold to this, we no longer have that bargaining advantage. When one looks at the other side—the damage that is done, the uncertainty that is created and the general restriction on profit that has led to such high unemployment—one cannot but be gravely sceptical about the continuing existence of the Price Commission even for a year.
If we were not a reasonable and moderate Opposition we might advocate the Commission's abolition here and now. But we offer a compromise proposal that it should continue for one year. At the end of that year we should have passed over the transitional arrangements from the present Price Code, which has become increasingly irrelevant, because

where people would have been able to make profits they have been stopped from doing so and, where they would not have been able to make profits the Price Code has had no effect at all. It has become an illusion and a deception. As a result, it has been thoroughly discredited.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I wonder why the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted for the establishment of the Price Commission as a permenant institution in 1973.

Mr. Neubert: The Minister has intervened on that point before. I have tried to explain the history of this institution. First, it was intended to be part of a twin policy of restraint on wages and prices. It was certainly given some permanence as an institution in the Bill in which it was incorporated, but the powers were to be renewable yearly as part of a continuing and developing agreement and understanding amongst all the people in the country—in particular, between the TUC, the Government and the CBI, the tripartite alliance that has led us to such disaster in the course of the past few years.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Does my hon. Friend recall that his right hon. Friend the Shadow Chancellor has said on many occasions that it was never his intention that the Price Commission should be a permanent institution?

Mr. Neubert: That does not surprise me at all. I would certainly have hoped that that was his view, as it would be mine. What we are creating here is a further Parkinsonian exercise, whereby if an institution exists it must be staffed and financed, and when it becomes obsolete new purposes must be found for it.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does not my hon. Friend find it rather remarkable that one of the Ministers on this Bill is having to do all the interrupting from the Government Benches? Is it not remarkable also that on a major piece of legislation, which we have been told is an essential part of phase 3 and the economic policy of the Government, apart from four Members of the payroll vote there are no Members on the Government Back Benches? Where does my


hon. Friend think they are? Does he think they are all on the picket lines now, or what?

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraserrose——

Mr. Neubert: I must answer my hon. Friend first. My hon. Friend has asked me a question and I must do my best to answer it. My hon. Friend has already suggested that they may be on the picket line. They may be in their favourite haunt—the Tea Room. But what is certain is that they will be consistent with their colleagues on the Committee if they excel themselves by their silence. There was very little contribution from the Government Benches. Yet they were told that this was a crucial element in the Government's policy.

Mr. John Fraser: One has now established by dialogue that the Opposition set up the Price Commission on a permanent basis but did not really mean it. Let us make it clear whether this amendment is intended not merely to limit the life of the Price Commission as an institution to one year initially but also to limit the powers or to curtail the existence of the powers in this Bill for one year on the same basis.

Mr. Neubert: I am arguing my case. I am not arguing the Minister's case, nor am I supplying him in advance with information that he may need for his reply.
The point about this amendment is its flexibility. We are arguing the continued existence of the powers sought for a year, but there would then be an annual renewal, which would give the House of Commons, which surely should be paramount in these matters, the opportunity to decide whether it had been a good bargain.
We believe that it has been a fool's bargain in the past few years. We have no confidence at all in the Government for making a permanent contract of this kind which will have no compensating advantages.

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister is really suggesting that he does not expect to be in power in a year or two and that therefore he is going to oppose this amendment because he would rather that something were put on a per-

manent basis, so that when he is not in power it would mean repealing the Act?

Mr. Neubert: I think that the Minister is also looking to the time when there may be a permanent memorial to his unsuccessful tenure of office and superintendence of the Bill. Indeed, even the Department may one day be razed to the ground. It would be nice to think that down the road, just off the Embankment, there was to be a tribute to the sterling work and long hours put in by the Minister to such little effect.
We are sceptical about the effect of the Price Commission. We believe that Professor Parkinson's philosophy should be abandoned. Because the Price Commission exists, it does not mean that it should continue to exist. Because it has some thinking people among its numbers it does not mean that they must continue to stay with the Price Commission.
I understand that the Liberals hold the view that the proposed powers for selective intervention in pricing might be better exercised by one of the previously existing institutions—for example, that they should be brought within the monopolies area and, more particularly, within the general ambit of the Office of Fair Trading. That institution, which is of some permanence, was set up on the inspiration of the then Conservative Government. That would seem to have a proper r61e to play should there be any evidence of profiteering to the disadvantage of the economy generally.
To set up the Price Commission and to give it this degree of inevitability, if not infinity, seems entirely wrong. That is why we have moved the amendment.

Mr. George Younger: I note that we have now been joined by one Labour Back Bencher, and he is very welcome. I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will feel that we are glad to see him. We were astonished to find only a few minutes ago that there were literally no Labour Back Bench Members present on this important matter.
I should like to refer to the effect of the permanence of these powers on small businesses. Inevitably, in discussing these matters and making detailed arrangements for them, the Government have to operate mainly through the larger units in


industry by exerting the necessary restraints on them. Therefore, the many small enterprises which make up the vast bulk of industries have to tag along at the end of the arrangements which are settled between the Price Commission and the major units in any industry.
Many hon. Members on both sides will have experience of how this works in practice. Because of the way that it works in practice, I feel that it would be a bad thing psychologically and practically for the Price Commission to be given these powers with unlimited tenure. I shall briefly explain why.
Small businesses, which have been experiencing the greatest squeeze on their profitability, on the time of those who manage them and on the employment they provide, are the most likely victims at any point where price control or restriction operates on an industry. The larger units do not necessarily suffer the quickest or the most. I would argue that they often suffer much less than the smaller units which make up the main part of any industry.
Apart from a few devoted people who espouse the cause of small businessses—there are one or two associations and there is the Small Business Bureau which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends wisely, effectively and successfully set up—there is not nearly as good a voice for those who operate small businesses as there is for those who, understandably, have direct representation on the CBI and often have links with members of the TUC.
4.45 p.m.
On behalf of the many thousands who run small businesses, I beg the Minister to think through the effects of having these powers with an unlimited time scale upon them. The effect will be that small businesses will know for sure that, for as far ahead as they can see, every turn of the inflationary screw will hit them longer and harder than it will hit the main parts of the industries in which they operate.
In case anyone should think that this is a somewhat narrow base upon which to found an argument and that we should not consider only those who run small businesses—I would argue that we should indeed very carefully consider such people—I point out that the employment provided by small businesses in most parts

of the country is rarely less than 30 per cent. of jobs and is probably as high as 40 per cent. or 50 per cent. in many areas.
The inevitable result of price freezes or controls which squeeze margins generally is that those at the smaller end will find that their weaker brethren go to the wall. From figures which have been made available in recent months, we know of the numbers of bankruptcies which have tragically taken place among many small businesses. Those who do not go into liquidation inevitably have to lay off employees or, more likely, do not take on new employees and do not take on any new activities or expand because of the restriction on their profitability.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not regard my intervention as unhelpful, but I understand that there are instructions to keep the debate going. I should be interested to learn—I want small businesses to be helped—where he feels that the Price Commission and the proposed powers in the Bill will impinge on small businesses. Margin controls will operate for a further year, but only during the period of pay policy. After that it will be on selective examination. Will the hon. Member try to explain in more detail how he sees the Price Commission and these powers impinging on small businesses? In some cases, small businesses are oppressed by large monopolistic concerns which would be more likely than small firms to be the subject of investigation by the Price Commission.

Mr. Younger: I did not know that the Minister was under instructions to keep the debate going. I do not know from whom those instructions have emanated. Obviously he wants to wait until his troops arrive.
I am worried about what the Minister has just said. If it is necessary for an Opposition Member to explain to him at this stage how small businesses are adversely affected by matters such as these, there is obviously a long way to go.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is my hon. Friend aware that when we moved an amendment in Committee to limit the powers to deal with category 1 and category 2 companies, but to exclude companies in category 3 and below, the Minister spoke against it on the basis


that some small companies were monopolistic?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that fascinating passage which I recall having read in the Committee's proceedings. It is a telling point.
Perhaps I should explain to the Minister what happens to small businesses. When the Price Commission imposes a price freeze on a firm or industry, or if it calls in for examination an application for a price increase from a particular industry, it normally deals with the trade association concerned or with one or two of the larger units in the industry.
The Minister must be familiar with the procedure. The profit margins, cost increases and all the necessary details are carefully gone into by officials on both sides. While the larger units in the industry are providing the information and going through this procedure, small businesses not directly involved, except posi-sibly through a trade association, have to carry on. Who is thinking about their month-by-month, week-by-week activities? The big concerns can probably carry a few months of reduced profitability while the procedure is going on, but small businesses often cannot do so.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The fact is that under the Bill small businesses will be just as severely affected as large concerns. Will my hon. Friend note that, when a price freeze investigation is taking place on a market leader, which tends to be a large company, all other prices in that sector will presumably be frozen?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is right. He has assisted us and saved a little time by making the point I was about to make.
When a large market leader firm is being investigated, it is unable to put up prices and no one in competition with it is likely to be able to put up its prices to a higher level. I hope the Minister will confirm that he understands that this could have a serious effect on small businesses. If he does not understand that, I suggest that we should get in touch with all the organisations which represent small businesses and tell them that, despite all the work they have done, they have failed to get their case through to the Minister.

Mr. John Fraser: I was genuinely seeking understanding about what the hon. Member was worried about. He has now said that he is not worried about margin control. He has accepted that there will be a freeze on the prices of small businesses when a sectoral investigation is taking place. His concern boils down to the slight effect that a limitation of prices imposed on a larger business would have on small businesses.

Mr. Younger: I am glad that the Minister has recognised my argument, but I hope he will not regard this as a small matter. Many of my constituents who are involved in small businesses do not regard this as unimportant. It is life and death to them. It is not unimportant when a small concern has to go out of business because of the onrush of inflation and because it is prevented from putting up prices.
Although small businesses are not directly affected by the Price Commission, they are involved because competition prevents them from putting up their prices to any greater extent than the leaders in the market. I hope that we have got through to the Minister that thousands of people are worried about this.
That is why we have made this modest proposal. We are not suggesting that the Price Commission should be prevented from doing its work during the next year or two. We want to put a yearly seal of approval on the Commission and an ultimate limit of three years. That is a modest proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has done her best to meet the Minister part of the way, and I hope that there will be a response. If there is no response, I shall be deeply depressed about what the Government believe to be the role of the House on a matter which so seriously affects our constituents.
The powers of the Price Commission are and must be connected with the continuation of the pay policy. The Minister made that clear during Committee on several occasions. The freeze powers of the Commission are part of a whole policy which includes a pay policy. If the Government are right about their claims that inflation will be brought down to single figures later next year, there cannot be an argument for demanding that these powers should continue for


more than three years. However, I am getting a little cynical about Government predictions about when inflation will be brought under control.
Our proposal is reasonable. Many would say that it is too reasonable. Many people would say that we have gone too far to try to meet the Minister. In logic, we should be proposing that the Price Commission should exist for only another year, until phase 3 comes to an end. In the interest, however, of trying to be reasonable and in an attempt to persuade the Government to meet us half way, we have gone further than we should have done.
I hope that the Minister will respond favourably and agree to the amendment or something like it. Unless he does that, we shall be letting down small businesses. Those who run small firms look to us to solve their problems. Many thousands of jobs are involved. If the House does not step in on behalf of such people, who on earth will do so?

Mr. Michael Shersby: This is indeed a modest proposal, but the amendment is fundamental to the Bill. It enables the House to consider the extent to which the existence of the Price Commission can be tolerated in the short term. The House can reach a satisfactory conclusion on this matter only by considering whether the existence of the Commission will really help consumers to deal with inflation. The House should consider carefully the adverse effects that a permanent Price Commission could have on the interests of the consumer, in addition to considering the advantageous effects that it might also have.
There is also the other side of the coin. For example, what effect will a permanent Price Commission, with its new powers, have on industry? How will its existence affect investment, profitability and—perhaps to many hon. Members most important of all—employment?
The entire principle of price control is raised by the existence of the permanent Price Commission now envisaged. When the Minister talks about the intentions of the previous Conservative Government he should remember that much water has passed under the bridge since those days. Views on price control and the effectiveness of price commissions and the way in

which they operate have also changed. It is right for the House to look at these matters in the light of present day circumstances.
The argument for the House is whether the Price Commission should stay as a permanent feature of the British scene for many years to come or should cease to exist in a year or two.
The terms of the amendment are reasonable. Price control can be justified only in the most specific circumstances, such as a monopoly or near-monopoly situation, a temporary counter-inflation measure, or as a counterpart to effective pay control. These views were largely accepted by the Secretary of State during the long debate on Amendment No. 1 in Committee. That amendment sought to limit the life of the Price Commission to one year or to the duration of the pay policy, whichever was the shorter. When we voted on that amendment the vote was tied and it was negatived by the casting vote of the Chairman. It is therefore right that the House should reconsider the arguments in favour of giving a limited life to the Commission. We hope that the Minister will be persuaded to change his mind and meet the House half way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that this was an opportunity for the Government to meet the Opposition half way. I hope that the Minister will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended. We are today trying to look ahead a few years. We are not trying to deal only with the situation with which we are faced today. We are trying to look ahead to the end of price control, perhaps to the summer and autumn of 1978 and beyond, and the situation that will prevail then. Therefore, one of our principal concerns is considering the clause and, indeed, throughout our consideration of the whole Bill thus far, has been to examine the question whether the existence of a permanent Price Commission, in particular, will really help the consumer.
5 p.m.
I have directed my attention to this matter in some depth and I have thought a great deal about the question whether the power to investigate price increases and to freeze them is really an effective means of countering inflation in the short term or even in the longer term.


Certainly the history of attempts by Government—the present Government in particular—to manipulate prices is not at all encouraging. I have seen little if any evidence that the consumer believes that such manipulation, in either the short term or the longer term, is really effective. In fact, I think it would probably be much truer to say that consumers are, generally speaking, by now almost totally disillusioned by the repeated promises of more stable prices that they have heard over recent years.
One has only to sit in the Chamber and listen to Ministers talking about prices being stabilised or the rate of inflation dropping to single figures next year to hear the jeers and feelings of disillusionment that are expressed by hon. Members in the House. We in the House, after all, only reflect what people outside feel—what our constituents tell us when we meet them, week in and week out, and get their views on these important issues.
I believe that many people are coming to believe that all that can be achieved by the Price Commission is a short-term distortion of prices at the expense of a considerable distortion of competition. Do consumers really believe that the alteration of the constitution of the Commission contained in the clause will really bring down prices and that it will really act as an important element in the Government's counter-inflation policy? The answer to that question must certainly be "No." Most consumers will, I suggest, believe it to be little more than another bureaucratic convulsion in the life of an institution in which they have little faith. They will shrug their shoulders, because they know that an appointed Price Commission, on the basis proposed in the clause, can do little to relieve the burden of rising prices and unemployment.
Talking of unemployment, I turn now to the question how the Price Commission, will affect industry, investment, profits and employment. I want to ask the Minister how the establishment of the Commission on the new basis set out in the clause is likely to affect business confidence, investments, profits and employment. Can he tell the House today that the Bill and the proposed alterations to the constitution of the Price Commission have met with enthusiasm from industry? Has he received deputations telling him that it will have a helpful

effect on their investment programme, that they are satisfied that they will be able to operate profitably in the future, and that they will be able to expand and will be able to offer more jobs in areas in which jobs are very hard indeed to find today? If the Minister has received any such deputations, I shall be very interested to hear about them.
To my certain knowledge, the Minister has received deputations from industry telling him something very different—that the continued existence of price control—the existence of this Price Commission, with its powers to investigate and to freeze prices—is likely to have the most disastrous effects upon companies' investment programmes up and down the country. It is not just the large companies that are involved. The smaller companies are also worried about their ability to maintain an adequate level of profits and to expand and offer increased employment.
From all the published reactions, there is very little doubt that in being asked to be subjected to the kind of price controls and intervention that the continuation of the Price Commission presupposes, industry generally is very unhappy indeed. If industry is unhappy, there must also be many millions of consumers who are unhappy, because consumers know that their jobs depend on successful, expanding industry. They know that the availability of products in the shops depends upon the ability of industry to make adequate, but not excess profits, and they know that the availability of a wide range of choice also depends upon successful and expanding industry.
I believe that it is well recognised—certainly on the Opposition side of the House—that what industry needs is a period in which to recover the profits that it has lost, to invest, to expand and, in so doing, to create more jobs. Surely, then, it is not unreasonable to say that industry should be expected to accept the power to investigate and to freeze for only a very limited period—a period of the length proposed in the amendment—in turn for phase 3 of the pay policy. That, at the very least, would be a bargain that industry might feel was a reasonable one to strike.
After all, if the Prime Minister is correct—I hope that he is—in saying that the rate of inflation will come down to single


figures by the middle of next year, surely that in itself is a good reason for limiting the existence of the Price Commission to a couple of years more at the very most.
The House also knows that it is extremely unlikely that any effective pay policy will go beyond August 1978, so why should the Price Commission not go at about that time, or a little later, as well? I cannot see any reason why it should not go then.

Mr. Terence Higgins: I have not had the advantage of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill. Perhaps I may ask my hon. Friend whether the Minister has given any indication of the extent or the quantification of the extent to which the Bill will actually lead to any reduction in the rate of inflation by the middle of next year.

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. No. I do not think that the Minister has given any quantification of the extent to which the Bill will help to reduce the rate of inflation. As I recall, what the Secretary of State said was that the Bill was an important element in the Government's counter-inflation policy but that it was the overall economic effect of the Government's policy that would be much more important than the existence of the Price Commission or the machinery proposed to be set up by the Bill. That is an additional reason for making the point that the Price Commission should go as soon as is humanly possible.
I want to touch upon the question of monopoly powers, because very often in our debates on prices Labour Members raise the question of monopolies—an important topic which, quite rightly, concerns us all. In recent months we have heard more about monopolies than we did a year or two ago. It is a matter of concern to everyone, but I suggest that there is no reason for keeping the Price Commision in permanent existence to deal with a monopoly situation. After all, the anti-monopoly powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are very considerable and could be strengthened if necesary.
Why, then, do we need the degree of permanence now envisaged in the clause? I have heard it suggested that the Com-

mission must have permanence in order that the right people may be found to serve on it. That, surely, must be nonsense, because the Secretary of State said in the House only yesterday, in answer to a Question that I had tabled to him with regard to membership of the Price Commission, that he hoped that its members would serve for three years. I suggest that this clearly implies that the chairman and deputy chairman might serve for a much shorter period, and that the Minister was keeping his options open.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does my hon. Friend recall that yesterday the Secretary of State corrected that, and said that the initial appointment was for only two years?

Mr. Shersby: Yes, I do recall that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was a very convenient statement by the Secretary of State. Another two years would fit in very nicely with the amendment. I say to the Minister of State, therefore, in all sincerity, on the basis of the arguments already advanced on the clause—arguments that I am sure will be advanced by some of my hon. Friends—that it would be reasonable to limit the life of the Commission to a definite and comparatively short period. I believe that the powers that the Commission has to investigate individual increases and to freeze prices at the level at which they were before investigation, are very considerable.
I have heard it said on behalf of the Government that these powers are an important element in their counter-inflation policy. Anyone who has read the reports of the Standing Committee will recognise that it is probably the deterrent effect of the investigation and freeze procedure that the Government appear to have in mind as an element of their counter-inflation policy rather than the actual results of the freeeze and investigation itself.
This is a cause of considerable concern. It causes concern in industry—in companies both large and small—and because of the deterrent effect that is contained in those powers it is only right that the House should decide today to limit the existence of the Commission to a couple of years at the most.
It has been said during the Committee stage that it would be inconvenient and


cumbersome and that it would cause difficulty for the House if the Government were forced, in a couple of years' time, to introduce another Bill to replace a measure that had a limited life. I am not sure that that is correct. I believe that if the House feels that legislation is necessary to deal with a continuing problem of inflation at any time in the future, there will be no difficulty in dealing with it. I do not, therefore, accept the argument that because there is to be further legislation, continuing and permanent powers must be given to the Price Commission.
For those reasons, I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Liberal Party believes that what industry most requires from Parliament is not the prospect of drastic or dramatic change but continuity, stability and a fair degree of consensus. Therefore I start with a point on which I am very glad to be at one with the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppen-heim), although I do not think that she was quite as anxious to be at one with me. It concerns our suspicion about adding to the bureaucracy.
We regard with suspicion—although we hope that we shall receive satisfactory explanations—the persistence of an apparently increasingly large Price Commission. Had there been the legal possibility we should have wished the whole of these powers—because we accept and welcome them—to be introduced into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Unfortunately, the Fair Trading Act 1973, as enacted, does not permit that to happen, and there would have to be substantial amendment of that Act in order that our objective could be achieved. Certainly our blood on the Liberal Bench would run cold indeed if the Government were in any way to indicate that they look forward to a permanent Price Commission, additional to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
I hope that the Government will make plain tonight that when the legalities can be attended to they will not be at all opposed to an amalgamation of the Price Commission and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, so that the powers may continue, but without a redundant and supernumerary bureau-

cracy. That is our point, and that is what is down on the Order Paper in our names.

5.15 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I have always considered the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) to be one of the more sensible Members of his party, and I must say that so far I agree with everything he has said, particularly about some of the powers, when he was speaking about the Monopolies Commission. But I put it to him that unless this amendment is accepted, what he fears could happen at some date in the far future. Is he prepared for such an eventuality, where no definite date is set on that particular happening?

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Lady is being ingenuous. She knows perfectly well—and here I must come to a point of dissension—that we welcome these powers. Indeed, the Liberals on the whole would give a greater permanence to them even than the Government.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Why?

Mr. Wainwright: We welcome the powers and reject the eloquent arguments against the powers which we have heard during the last hour or so. It is the redundant bureaucracy that we oppose. All we ask is that as soon as the legalities can be attended to—at the moment they prevent all this being carried out within the Fair Trading Act 1973—this will be done. But there really can be no doubt with regard to the powers themselves. Our view is that the powers are needed, that they must be permanent, and that they must be elaborated and revised as the years go by.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are not discussing the question of powers, but that Amendment No. 1 is dealing with the institution itself? I trust that he will agree, on reflection, that we are dealing with redundant bureaucracy.

Mr. Wainwright: Yes, but it will be apparent—I do not need to insult the intelligence of the House by labouring it—that until the legalities can be attended to, so that we can get all these powers, preferably in a sharper form, well ensconced under the Monopolies Commission, it will be very dangerous to


oppose the extension of the Price Commission. We do not want these powers to lapse, because Liberals do not accept the argument that they threaten the existence of small businesses or that they are detrimental to investment. We construe them in the opposite sense—that they are very stimulating to business. We want and have worked for years for a strong, positive, dynamic competition policy in this country, which both Conservative and Labour Governments have grossly neglected all my life. I hope that the Government will be reassuring on that score.

Mr. William Shelton: I accept that we need a dynamic competition policy, but will the hon. Gentleman explain how a price control policy can stimulate business?

Mr. Wainwright: Because the investigation of the most arrant symptons of oligopoly and monopoly, namely, extortionate prices, would be the tin-opener into the can of the monopoly situation. We want to see a Monopolies Commission which is not a ponderous legalistic body which spends months examining the books and going through the minutes and trying to find what somebody said to somebody else in the golf club. We want it to be a body with sharp investigatory powers, and which can point to a symptom of monopoly or oligopoly or unhealthy stagnation and say "Let us get our teeth into it and see if this is something which should be investigated at the very root."

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: What the hon. Gentleman is arguing for is the gist of Amendment No. 8. He is saying that at some stage some of the powers of the Price Commission should be transferred to a new body—a much tougher, more aggressive and more capable monopolies rather than mergers body. But it would not be possible to transfer these powers without new legislation. The hon. Gentleman is saying that what has been presented is a strictly short-term measure, whereas we need permanent powers in a new type of exercise by a new body. He is actually arguing for our amendment, because we want the same thing as he does, and we say that it will not be achieved by continuing the Price Commission with these powers.

Mr. Wainwright: No. I am not as naive as that. It is a perfectly honourable position, although I dissent from it sharply. It is clear that what the Conservative sector of the Opposition wants is to get rid of a lot of the powers, which are, in their view, dangerous and damaging, as they have been arguing in the last hour or so. That is emphatically not our view as Liberals.
There is, I think, one thing that is even worse than bureaucrats, and that is a fixed, rigid, over-elaborate Byzantine code which has been given layer upon layer of annual reinforcements of Byzantinry and which it is now virtually impossible for small businesses to understand.
I quite understand that the large businesses, so often represented by hon. Members on my right, can take these codes in their stride because they have vast staffs of trained lawyers who can deal with codes. But if one asks a small business man whether, given this wicked and unhappy world, he would rather have a Byzantine code that one had to study for nights on end with a towel over one's head or a bureaucracy of flesh and blood, I am sure that we would get an answer for the latter. I am glad that the Committee, even though poorer for the lack of a Liberal presence, had the sense to get rid of the code within 12 months.

Mr. Shersby: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in order to get rid of the tendencies which he has so graphically described it would be right that they be dealt with by an organisation constituted like the Price Commission in preference to a revised Monopolies and Mergers Commission which is able to operate more effectively. I certainly accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the length of time which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission takes, but I put it to him that a better way to deal with the problem of monopolistic tendencies would be to devise a quicker machinery rather than to deal with it through the almost arbitrary powers in the hands of three commissions.

Mr. Wainwright: We must face the fact that in a rapidly changing market situation it is necessary in some respects to appoint people of the utmost integrity, independence and skill and to give them considerable discretionary powers.


I do not think that the legalistic approach, although it is essentially the usual approach of this Parliament, by building up a code of incredible elaboration is really adequate even though it may prevent the occasional rough justice taking place.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: In commending the powers in a longer term than perhaps our amendment is commending them is the hon. Gentleman commending them only in relation to near monopoly situations or to pure counter inflation provisions?

Mr. Wainwright: As I hope I have made clear, our aim is to have a permanently strong, positive and at times drastic competition policy. That is what we are after. But we believe that this will need an element of price control because we must unfortunately face the fact that getting rid of monopoly situations is a long-term job. In any major industry one cannot hope to send the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in, in order to give the public the benefit of lower prices with reasonable speed. We believe, and have long believed, that there is also room for an element of discretionary price control whilst monopolies are being dismantled.
Here I come to the point where we part company from the Tory sector of the Opposition, and perhaps from the Government also, because we approach these things without having the Trade Union Congress in any way around our neck or in our pocket.

Mr. Le Marchant: Will the hon. Gentleman say what sector of the Opposition there is apart from the Tory Opposition?

Mr. Wainwright: I would incur the wrath of Mr. Deputy Speaker if I were to go into that question, but I think it is common knowledge that there are five Opposition parties, and very distinguished sectors there are among them, one of which was well represented in Standing Committee.
To summarise, our position is that we believe, and we have ever since the time of Beveridge, in full employment. We believe that in order to achieve full employment there must be a continuous and substantial Government intervention in the economy. We do not believe in the invisible hand. If we ever did, we were

cured of that in the last part of the nineteenth century. It is time that other people were cured of it as well.
When we come to the form of Government intervention in the economy we believe the price that has to be paid for achieving as near as possible full employment is a permanent wages and employment policy. That is where we may differ from Labour Members. Parallel with that permanent pay policy which we regard as a permanent feature of British life there must be a strong and dynamic competition policy. It is simply the difficult legal obstacle in the form of the present legislation that prevents us from going helter skelter with a greatly expanding and more powerful Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In the meantime we very much welcome the transformation of the Bill in Standing Committee.
The hon. Member for Gloucester made play of one sentence that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) uttered in the Second Reading debate about the Bill being for one year only. The situation is transformed by the fact that there is every chance that the code to which we take the greatest exception will disappear after one year as a result of the amendment which I am sure my hon. Friend would have supported vigour-ously had he served on the Committee.
We shall come in due course to Amendment 80, which, in a more positive form, embodies the changes that we should like to see. I hope that in the meantime we shall have some response from the Government on the point of the powers remaining, but the bureaucracy being greatly reduced, by the possibility, when the legislative situation allows, of an amalgamation with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Baker: Having heard the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), the news should go out from this House that with regard to the Price Commission and the Price Commission Bill the Lib-Lab pact is in good shape. Whatever differences may exist between the Liberal Party and Government over direct elections or devolution, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party think as one in respect of the Bill and competition policy. Indeed, if the Government want an easy ride for the next 12 months they should go on reintroducing


this Bill every month, because, so far as I can see, it is about the only measure on which they are likely to get the full-hearted support of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I would enlighten the hon. Gentleman a bit further, We have never been content with the status quo for very long. We are already pressing the Government as hard as possible to amend the 1973 Act so that the developments I spoke of can take place.

Mr. Baker: I am pleased to know that the Liberal Party is not satisfied with the status quo. But the Bill we are now considering, in terms of the form that it incorporates into the existing legislation on the regulation of prices in our economy, is yet another staging post along that story and rocky road that Governments of all parties feel inclined to take from time to time. Over the last 10 years we have had debates like this on many occasions. The previous Labour Government had its system of price regulation and control. We had our own Price Commission and the code. Now we are entering yet another phase.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was entirely pertinent. He asked whether the Government had made any sort of assessment about the effect of the next stage in our system of price regulation on the retail price index. My hon. Friend got a stony answer. That was one of the occasions when the Minister did not seek to intervene because he could not give that forecast.
We all know how effective the Price Commission has been since 1973. It is necessary for both sides of the House to approach the question of price regulation with considerable humility and to recognise that any instrument that any Government sets up will have only a limited effect on the actual level of prices of any goods or services at any given moment of time in our economy.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) on Second Reading, when he quoted from an inter-

view that the Secretary of State had with a Mr. Leak. He said:
Mr. Leak asked the Secretary of State:
Would the price of any product be lower today if these controls had been introduced three years ago?
The Secretary of State answered,
Some prices certainly would. But not overall." "—[Official Report, 27th April, 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1358.]
In other words, the Secretary of State admitted that even if the new machinery had been available for the last three years it would have made no impact at all on price levels.

Mr. Baker: Yes. I wish that all members of the Government spoke with such frankness. There is a great deal of double talk when the Government talk about a deal on phase 3. They suggest to trade union leaders that the Bill will inhibit price increases, when we all know that it will have a very limited effect. At the beginning of the day the determinants that affect prices are the overall policies of the Government.
The reason for our high rate of inflation can be laid directly at the door of the disastrous economic policy of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Employment in 1974–75. That was the Foot-Healey inflation era. Only 18 months ago the Chancellor recognised this and made an attempt to get the money supply under control. He was remarkably successful, but at the same time he embarked on a ludicrous policy of driving down the external value of the pound, which is entirely contrary to controlling the money supply. It is these factors that determine the level of prices in our society for goods and services. It is necessary for us all to recognise that with humility.
This amendment deals with the life of the new Price Commission. I support it, and take issue with the hon. Member for Colne Valley about the powers and status of the Commission and his reasons for not wishing to support the amendment. The new Commission being set up by the Bill is a very different beast from today's Price Commission, even though it has the same address, many of the same commissioners, and most of the existing 650 civil servants.
The Price Commission today operates under the code. The Government have


sensibly decided to abandon the code and the whole basis of allowable costs for their price regulation policy. One has learned that the code is cumbersome and Byzantine, and it gave certain companies through its guidelines, price increases that they might not otherwise have got. The Government are sensible to abandon that, but they are creating a Commission with considerably greater powers in certain areas.
It is in the exercise of these powers that the House should be very reluctant to concede permanent status. That is what this amendment is all about. I have some sympathy with the argument that our country can do with an institution that combines the Price Commission and the Monopolies Commission. There is a rôle for a combined body, looking into situations of imperfect competition, which is slightly less cumbersome than the Monopolies Commission. In fact, the powers of the Price Commission will not give the new body anything like satisfactory powers or powers that can be exercised fairly.
The Monopolies Commission can start an investigation only if there is a case to be answered—if there is a prima facie case of a monopoly situation and various criteria have been met. These criteria include market share, abuse of market position, and things of that nature. Under this Bill, inquiries can be instituted into the operation of companies without any criteria at all.
During the course of this debate today and tomorrow the Government will say that there are criteria in the Bill. But it is very important to establish what the criteria are referring to. In Clause 2 they refer to the conduct of the actual investigation once it has started. I do not quarrel with those criteria; they are sensible, widely drawn and provide clear guidelines to the Price Commission, once it has started an investigation.
But the key question is, what is the trigger that initiates the investigation in the first place? This is where the Bill is deficient, and we should be reluctant to give permanent powers to the Price Commission until we see how it will choose the companies that are to be investigated.
The present position is that companies of a certain size have to pre-notify the Price Commission of price increases that

they intend to introduce. Companies of another size must notify after introduction, and there are other companies that do not have to notify at all. The new Commission can undertake investigations without any prompting. It can decide to investigate a company if it increases its prices by only ½ per cent. for the first time in six years. On the other hand, it can ignore the activities of a company that is regularly increasing its prices by 3 per cent. a month. There are no criteria at all. A company does not have to increase its prices by 5 per cent., 10 per cent., or any set percentage over any given period for the Price Commission to start an investigation. Indeed, a company does not actually have to increase prices at all to be subjected to investigation under Clause 10. A company can just go on trading and then find itself subjected to investigation on a direction from the minister.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser rose——

Mr. Baker: No, I shall not give way. I know what the Minister will say—he is not allowed to specify a particular company unless there is a monopoly situation. But he can specify two, three or four companies without their applying for any price increases in their activities. The point that I am making is that if any investigation powers are given to a commission of this sort to examine areas of imperfect competition, some criteria about that imperfect competition should be laid down. That is what is missing and that is why the official Opposition believe that the powers should not be granted until the criteria have been laid down clearly in the Bill, or enunciated in a statement from the Minister. That is why we should have a period during which we can watch the operation of the Price Commission and see how it intends to investigate companies.
I have heard it said that it is likely to pick companies at random to investigate. Will it say it is investigating six from Yorkshire, seven from the South-West and 20 from London during the next three months? How else could it choose? I put this as a serious question to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, who lectures us about the pure philosophy of Liberalism. The hon. Member was not in the Standing Committee on the Bill, and I do not believe that he is the


usual spokesman for the Liberal Party on these matters. He must address himself to these questions. It is no good the Liberal Party saying it is in favour of goodness, gentility, and general warmth in society and warm weather as well unless it can satisfy us how it actually wants to see these things operate. It is no use saying that Amendment 80 is the quintessence of Liberal thought. That amendment simply wishes to combine the Price Commission and the Monopolies Commission.
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the system of criteria which I have described in Amendment No. 80? If the hon. Gentleman gives the matter a little thought, I think that he will not say "Yes".

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), in his usual engaging way, is leading the House straight back to a Byzantine code. Once one begins to adumbrate detailed criteria, all the great corporate state bodies such as the CBI, TUC and all the others will weigh in and say "We do not want it to happen that way, but we want refinements". Before we know where we are, we shall be back once again to this appalling code, which I am glad to see is on its way out.

Mr. Baker: I am not adverse to the attractions of the Byzantine, when we compare what has happened to world civilisation since the decline of that empire. I am not suggesting the creation of a great Byzantine façade and code; I am asking for clear criteria to guide the Price Commission in its investigations into British industry.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley made one of those statements at which Liberal Party spokesmen are extremely good. He said that the Liberal Party wanted for British industry continuity, stability and certainty. The three things they will not get from this Bill are continuity, stability and certainty.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Wait and see.

Mr. Baker: I shall be delighted to wait and see—but not too long, please.
British industry is uncertain when it will be investigated under the powers of

the Price Commission. No company knows whether, if it puts up its prices by 10 per cent. or by 8 per cent., it will be investigated. No company knows whether, if it increased its prices six months ago and attempts to put them up three months later by a figure of 6 per cent., it will be investigated. There are no criteria to guide industry. One can search the provisions with the thoroughness that one searches for Liberal policies but one still cannot find any criteria.
I believe that the Liberal Party would be well advised to support our amendment. We believe that we should see how the Price Commission will operate.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the definition to which he has referred in terms of criteria was established it would spell out exclusions?

Mr. Baker: By no means. One wants to create an atmosphere of stability for British industry so that companies know where they stand and are not subject to the quixotic whims of a Commission that is barely answerable to this House, or to a ministerial direction that is imperfectly dealt with in this House. Industry should be allowed to expand and to reinvest and develop in a stable environment. That will not be the case under these provisions.
Just as criteria have been devised for the method, style and operation of the investigative powers of the Price Commission, I am equally convinced that criteria could be established to trigger off the whole elaborate mechanism of investigation.
5.45 p.m.
As I studied the Bill in Committee I came to the conclusion that one essential element was missing from it. The Government, in their competition policy and price policy, have been thinking about these matters as they have gone along. They have produced proposals and have modified them. They abandoned the Price Code, and one sunny morning upstairs in Committee the Secretary of State suddenly said "I wish to abandon dividend control". That was only accepting reality. I do not know whether hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side would agree with that.


Indeed, I do not think they quite understood the impact of their amendment when they moved it. If it had been cleared by the presidium that presides over the Tribune Group they would never have been allowed to table it. But they have done a good job in reviving the stimulus to capitalist society.
Before these proceedings are over, the Secretary of State may cast off yet another veil surrounding the body of the Government's competition policy. He may well decide to do so, because he got into a muddle about safeguards. I hope that on that matter at least we shall have the support of the Liberals when we come to that part of the Bill. In Committee we had to squeeze out of the Secretary of State—it was like squeezing water out of a big sponge—the commitment to publish the list of safeguards before Report.
I have gone a little wide in my remarks, but I still believe that the life of the Price Commission should be limited as suggested in the amendment. If in the next two years it is seen to be operating effectively and there is a job to be done, it can be continued by the Government of the day. I very much hope that the House will accept the amendment.

Mr. William Shelton: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, but I have listened with interest to the debate so far and to the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). My hon. Friend touched on a fundamental point. We shall have this new Price Commission, the chairman of which I understand has been appointed today, as have two vice-chairmen. The Minister is making a gesture. Is he saying that there are four vice-chairmen?

Mr. John Fraser: I was not making a gesture. There will be a chairman and three deputy chairmen.

Mr. Shelton: Three deputy chairmen. According to newspaper reports, their responsibilities will be considerably greater following the enactment of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone made a profound point. He asked what criteria the Price Commission is to apply to judge whether a company should be investigated. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), in his

extreme attitude toward Byzantine affairs of whatever nature, oversteps the mark. If we had to choose between the arbitrary decisions of a single person, even taken with colleagues, and some rudimentary guidance laid down by this House, or something laid down by the Minister, and available in print so that people can read it, surely one must opt for the second. It is the uncertain intervention of arbitrary ministerial ukases and judgments that most bedevils industry at the present time, creating an uncertainty that is prejudicial to investment.
The Minister asked the Opposition why we voted in 1973 for the establishment of the Price Commission. The answer given to the Minister was that at that time the code had to be renewed and reviewed every year. Let me give the Minister another answer. I voted for the Price Commission in 1973 because I thought that it would help to control inflation. I then believed that a Price Commission would do something to stop inflation from rising and would help to maintain inflation at least at the level it then was, or, hopefully, that it would reduce it below that level.
Events have proved one to have been grossly mistaken. I do not recollect what inflation was in 1973. It was about 7 or 8 per cent. It certainly did not reach the figures of 14 per cent., 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., the heights to which it has risen since the installation of the Price Commission. The Commission has not proved effective. It did not work as an anti-inflationary instrument in 1973. Not only have we higher inflation, but a far higher level of unemployment compared with that in 1973. I am sure that the House will regret the unemployment figures which were published today. Unemployment is now just 50,000 short of 1½ million—if I heard the news aright on the car radio as I came to the House at lunch time.
The anti-inflation policy which has been tried by both Governments—with the Price Commission, a wages policy and so on—has not been successful during the last four years, and yet we are now debating an amendment whereby the Government are asking us to give a continued, and more or less permanent, statutory existence to the Price Commission. We say "No". It should be given an existence of two years or something of


that sort. It should go hand in hand with the present counter-inflationary policy, which will, I hope, fade away shortly.
As one of those who do not wish to see a statutory and permanent Price Commission I have a suspicion that this is part of the move along the collectivist road so much beloved by many members of the Labour Government and Party. There is a choice before us in dealing with inflation and unemployment. We can move towards some form of siege economy with complete and permanent price control, or we can move back to some greater degree of competition, a mixed economy, more investment by business and more support for business and entrepreneurs.

Mr. Loyden: There is another aspect of this upon which no Conservative speaker has yet touched, and that is that the concentration of Government power in industry has changed considerably during the last decade. That represents a power that can influence prices in a tight and powerful way, and there seems to be nothing to counter that growing power in the economy.

Mr. Shelton: The applause that greeted the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) when he stood up earlier was because he was the first hon. Member on that side to have intervened so far. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his second intervention. He is right. The power of the nationalised industries is one of the greatest threats to the anti-monopoly movement. It is instructive that the increase in the price of gas was disapproved by the Price Commission but allowed by the Government. That is a specific incident that comes to mind. I entirely agree that this is a matter for grave concern.

Mr. Loyden: I agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) about the nationalised industries and the specific matter of gas, but does he not agree that this is not isolated to the nationalised industries? I should like to see the multi-national companies and the giant companies that dominate our economy dealt with in the same way.

Mr. Shelton: I understand that point, and it exemplifies what I have said about

the fork that we are facing. We can go along a road whereby we would deal with this sort of problem through complete and absolute control, or we could take the other road, which I prefer, because that would lead to greater benefit for the people. It would mean an increase in the anti-monopoly powers of the Government, because they would be able to intervene to break up monopolies. This is done more successfully by the United States Government than it is here. It is by competition that we can control the unfair excesses of the big companies, whether they are nationalised industries or multinational companies. They cannot be controlled through individual metered control on this or that effect and on individual prices. It can be done only by imposing some form of competition and, as far as possible, removing monopoly elements.
It is precisely by trying to make the Price Commission a permanent part of the establishment that we shall take a step along the wrong road to the corporate State, a more planned economy and more intervention, instead of the road that I wish to see us take towards less intervention.
I have changed my view about the causes of inflation since 1972–73. At that time I supported the Price Commission. I now believe that inflation is a monetary phenomenon and that prices and incomes policies, norms and stages ones and twos do not have the remotest effect on the level of inflation. The level of inflation is almost directly the consequence of decisions taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a year or two previously. We are now seeing the result of decisions taken by the Chancellor a couple of years ago.
The House hardly needs reminding of the ineffective attemps that have been made to control prices—and not just in the last four to five years. Such attempts have been made during hundreds of years past. The Roman emperors ordered, when there was a wheat shortage, that anyone who increased the price of grain would be killed. Of course, the price of grain still increased because there was a shortage. I could speak for some considerable time about the attempts that have been made to control prices by the most Draconian methods; but they have always failed.
I was recently a guest at a kibbutz in Israel. Money was not used there at all, and I asked how goods such as cigarettes were distributed. I was told that each member was given a number of credits that could be used throughout the year for the purchase of goods. I asked how it was decided how many credits each person should have and was told that the total product of the kibbutz for a year was estimated, converted into a number of credits, and that those credits were shared. I wondered what happened if the product fell short of expectations and I was told that more credits would have to be paid for each purchase. This must be so, and that is why inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon.
However, a wages policy, although it does not at all affect the level of inflation, does, no doubt, mitigate some of inflation's more unpleasant by-products. If inflationary expectations are not reduced, but the monetary supply is reduced so that the level of inflation can be brought down, there will inevitably be appalling unemployment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed a great deal of latitude to the hon. Member. He said earlier that he was taking a fork in the road. He had better keep on the road straight ahead, which leads to Amendment No. 1, because that is the matter under consideration.

Mr. Shelton: I apologise to the Chair.
If the Price Commission does not in any way affect inflation, but merely affects some of the by-products of inflation, if the Government are determined to bring inflation under control, and if the Chancellor has realised at last the effect of a monetary policy, it is quite clear that the Price Commission will have no function. These by-products will not be making their appearance. It is not important whether the Price Commission should exist for six months, a year or two years, or even whether it disappears now. It is of great importance that it should not continue to exist indefinitely.
6.0 p.m.
When we introduce controls on the economy, such as a price commission or wages policy, in order to reduce unemployment, we inevitably introduce all sorts of rigidities into the economy. If the Commission freezes prices, this undoubtedly damages the industry or company whose

prices have been frozen. Some may have been profiteering and could be said to have put themselves in difficulties that they have asked for, but the other companies involved, which have not been profiteering, will find that their investment potential is reduced, and this will probably lead to further unemployment.
The damage that the continued existence of the Price Commission will do in the longer term is far greater than any good it produces, and I believe that it produces very little benefit because it does not have an effect on the level of prices. My hon. Friends have already quoted the Secretary of State's admission that the Price Commission indeed does not affect the level of prices. Why on earth are we agreeing that the Commission should go on indefinitely? I hope that the House will agree that two years is long enough, and, indeed, is probably too long.

Mr. Ron Thomas: One of the reasons why there are few speakers on the Government side of the House is that we regret that Mr. Speaker was unable to select some new clauses that we had tabled. The idea behind them was to strengthen the legislation, because we believe that the Bill is far too weak to deal with the present structure of our economy and the way in which prices are fixed within our economy.
I get the impression from these debates that hon. Members on the Opposition Benches think that we are still living in the nineteenth century. They keep referring to competition being able to deal with these matters. I was happy to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) say that the Liberals had left that idea alone in the middle and latter part of the nineteenth century. Conservative Members deliberately fail to point out that within the present structure of British industry we have oligopolies completely dominating various industries and determining levels of investment, exports, prices, employment and unemployment.
I see no evidence from the United States or the United Kingdom that monopolies commissions or any other methods have injected the sort of competition that hon. Members opposite say is needed and that they claim will prevent the need for a price commission.
It has been suggested that attempts to control prices in the past have been useless, but all previous attempts have included far too many ways in which firms could dodge and get round the legislation and increase their prices. For example, the Price Code recently transferred £1,000 million from consumers to the corporate sector because of the gateways through which prices could be increased.
Under our new clauses, the Commission would have been able to freeze prices. It would have been able to make firms enter planning agreements, and would have been able to freeze their prices if they refused to do so. Planning agreements are linked with capital investment, prices, and so on. My hon. Friends and I will support the Commission against this attempt to shorten its life, but we should have liked it to be given the power to do something about the ways in which firms will seek to get round the legislation by reducing quality and standards while maintaining prices.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that the Commission would be able to intervene only if there were price increases or to deal with monopolies or oligopolies. I believe that it is essential that the Commission should also be able to intervene if it considers that prices could have been reduced. In cases where large firms dominate an industry and the prices of their raw materials are reduced, there should also be a reduction in the price of their goods. We wanted to propose that the Commission should have the power to investigate such situations.
My hon. Friends and I are not very happy about the Bill, because we believe that it will be ineffective. We do not accept that it has any teeth. I was not surprised when the hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that he had no criticism of the criteria in Clause 2. They are so woolly, waffling and wide open, and so full of gateways, that I do not believe that they will have any effect. That is why we wanted to strengthen them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already explained that his new clauses were ruled out of order. He is now seeking indirectly to argue the case for those new clauses. I hope that

he will stick to Amendment No. 1, which is under consideration.

Mr. Thomas: I felt that I was speaking to Amendment No. 1, because that deals with the setting up of the Price Commission.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Amendment No. 1 does not set up the Commission; it deals with the life of the Commission.

Mr. Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just going to say that the amendment deals with the length of the Commission's life and that I should like it to have a longer life than that suggested in the amendment. At the same time, I should like that longer life to be effective and for the Commission to have the teeth really to control prices.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It sounds as though perhaps we should send the Commission a get-well card.

Mr. Thomas: I should certainly do that if we had some control over the price of postage stamps and cards.
An hon. Member on the Opposition Bench made great play of the recent increase in gas prices, but the Opposition know that this is all part of the Tory strategy of demanding cuts in public expenditure. The IMF imposed an agreement on the Government, part of which involved the increase in gas prices. Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches support the IMF loan and that sort of strategy, together with cuts in public expenditure. The increase in gas prices was, in effect, a cut in public expenditure.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We regret the IMF loan and wish that it had not been necessary. If there had been a commensurate cut in public expenditure rather than a tax on gas prices, it would have been more satisfactory and would not have meant a price rise for anyone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are getting near 6.30 p.m. and the Minister still has to reply.

Mr. Thomas: Conservative Members know that the increase in gas prices was, in effect, a cut in public expenditure. They have supported such cuts which have created the stagflation in our economy, over which they have been


shedding crocodile tears. I shall vote against the amendment and support the contention that the Price Commission should have a long life. However, I appeal to the Government to give the Commission some teeth.
I reject the militant monetarism that we have heard from the Opposition Benches. That is no good. It is an insult to anyone's intelligence when Opposition Members say that inflation is due to too much money, to the Government or to the public sector borrowing requirement. It is high time that those allegations were justified. Even Friedman can no longer justify the stagflation in our economy. I reject the monetarist approach.
A real Price Commission with effective teeth which could impose price freezes and prevent prices rising is something that is required in our economy. I very much hope that even at this late hour some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends will be allowed to stand.

Mr. Higgins: I rise with somewhat mixed feelings as I have the rather doubtful privilege of having the Adjournment debate. Therefore, I shall endeavour to be brief. I shall resist the temptation of taking up the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) shortly before he concluded his remarks—namely, the relative virtues of Professor Friedman's analysis. It never seemed that his theory satisfactorily explained every case. I have in mind the example of inflationary effects of the black death some time ago. We must also bear in mind that inflationary wage settlements in the public sector may themselves have an effect on the public sector deficit and the money supply. The two factors are not totally unrelated.
I take up the two main points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). First, I join with my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Sir Arthur Cockfield, who is about to retire. Despite all the massive imperfections in the legislation that he was obliged to operate, he carried out his task with his customary skill. I know from my own experience in the Treasury, when I had the pleasure of working with him, that it is extremely great. I hope that the Minister will feel it appropriate to pay tribute to the excellent work that he has done over the years.
I was slightly puzzled by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester to fleas. I thought at one stage that she was going to burst into a well-known Russian song, which would seem not irrelevant to the present position of the Liberal Party.
I turn to the main point of the amendment—namely, whether a time limit should be set on the duration of the Commission. I share my hon. Friend's view that that should not be so. As she has pointed out, the amendment is modest in that it allows the Commission to continue for longer than many of us feel that it should.
We must consider this issue in relation to the Government's present anti-inflation policy. I return to the point that I sought to make earlier in an intervention. Surely it is not good enough for the Government to say that we must have the Commission and that it must continue in perpetuity without giving us some estimate of what they believe the quantitative effect of the Commission is likely to be on the level of inflation and the contribution that it is likely to make, in particular, to a reduction in the rate of inflation over the coming year. I have not heard any such quantification, and without that the Bill is not part of the counter-inflation policy in any overall sense but is an aspect of the policy to which a number of my hon. Friends have referred—namely, monopoly legislation and legislation against restrictive trade practices.
6.15 p.m.
We must consider these matters against a horrific rate of inflation. During the 1969 General Election campaign I well recall my hon. Friend producing a large shopping bag which reflected the situation at the beginning of the previous period of the Labour Government in 1964 and a second bag which showed the situation in 1970. I hate to think what she would have in that bag today, still less what she would be likely to have in it in a year's time. This is an immensely serious problem and not one that will be significantly affected by the proposals for continuing the Commission into the indefinite future.
It is definitely arguable that splitting the responsibility between the Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and the


Monopolies and Mergers Commission is likely to multiply bureaucracy—that cannot be disputed—and to make the impact that can be effected by the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission significantly less than it need be.
That having been said, I find myself much in agreement with the remarks made by the Secretary of State. On Second Reading he said:
Improving our competitive efficiency and influencing industrial performance in less than perfectly competitive markets is not a task confined to the next few years. Active promotion of competition is essential."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1257.]
I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman in that objective. It is a central feature of Conservative philosophy that competition should be encouraged.
It seemed that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West did not understand what we have been saying. We are saying that we believe competition to be imperfect and that we should do what we can to stimulate it. We believe that we must have an effective agency to do so. Although there is a need to speed up Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigations, that will not be done effectively if the task is handed over to the Price Commission. At the outside, I believe that within a year—certainly within the time specified within the amendment—the Government should in tegrate the two functions. That would be not only more economical but a great deal more efficient.
We must ask ourselves why the Bill is being given such prominence at this time. Indeed, it is almost the entire scope of Government legislation of a controversial nature now being put through the House. One cannot avoid feeling that it is in some sense a quid pro quo measure on the basis that its presence on the statute book is more likely to enable the Government to achieve a phase 3 settlement.
I am glad that the Leader of the House is present. I am not among those who take the view that wage control is unimportant or that wage restraint is unimportant. What I find incomprehensible is that the right hon. Gentleman is now stressing so strongly the need to control inflation when much of the inflation that we have had over the past three years

has been due to his gross irresponsibility at the time he came into office.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The mere presence of the Leader of the House does not entitle the hon. Gentleman to depart from what is under consideration, which is Amendment No. 1.

Mr. Higgins: Precisely, Sir Myer. I seek to bring my remarks into order, which I think they were before your intervention. The Leader of the House may think that he will be able to escape. I hope that I shall be able to avoid that contingency.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): At the risk of cutting short the hon. Gentleman's speech, I hope that he will not object if I leave at once under the Chair's invocation.

Mr. Higgins: I do not believe that this sort of Price Commission and its continuance for the indefinte future will have a significant effect on the level of pay settlements. It was the irresponsibility of the right hon. Gentleman in the past that led to a wage explosion. I do not believe that the continuation of the Commission will enable the Government to get the type of agreement that they want to restrain inflation. If that is the sole object in saying that we must have the Commission and continue its indefinitely, I believe that the result may be counter-productive. The idea that we should have a stage 3 agreement on that basis could create a situation in which the increase in the total wage bill over the next year or 18 months will be greater than if there had been no stage 3 agreement. If that is the quid pro quo, I do not believe that it is likely to be effective.
The Prime Minister has stressed that he does not want a phase 3 that is a fig leaf. I am not sure that we shall not end up with one that is a stinging nettle as a large number of people will receive wage settlements significantly greater than they would otherwise have obtained. I do not believe that the Bill and the continuation of the Commission provide a suitable means of achieving the Government's counter-inflation objectives.
Another matter that gives me cause for great concern is that the latest report of the Bank of England in its quarterly bulletin demonstrates clearly that the rate


of return on capital in relation to the cost of capital is diabolically low, which will deter investment. We have only to look at the figures at page 156 to see that over a prolonged period the rate of return obtainable on capital has been significantly less than the cost of capital.
The effect of the Commission and its continuance into the indefinite future is likely if it does anything at all, to reduce rather than increase the rate of return which may be obtained from investment. It may be that the rate of return is falsely high because of monopolistic practices. If that is so, it should be investigated by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If that Commission is too slow—I agree that it is—it should be given additional powers and staff to speed up the process. However, the procedure should not be carried out by means of the Price Commission.
If we are to keep up the rate of return or do something to raise it above its present abysmally low level, it is only when the monopolistic pressures are creating an unsatisfactory rate of return that the matter should be investigated.
This Commission, far from furthering either the Government's counter-inflation policy or their industrial strategy, and far from significantly benefiting the consumer, will foul up the overall structure of competition policy and the overal structure of the agencies that deal with competition. It will have an adverse effect on the future general economic prosperity of the country.
I hope that we may persuade the Minister to accept the amendment, if for no other reason than that it would speed up the debate and allow me much sooner to reach my Adjournment debate on the problems created in Worthing by the Department of Transport's A27 proposals.

Mr. Joseph Godber: I fully support the amendment. I remind the House of my interests. I am Chairman of the Retail Consortium and director of two firms with distributive interests.
The amendment is valuable and the arguments put forward in its support have been strong. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) but he left me spellbound when he spoke of changing a fig leaf for a stinging nettle. It seemed that that would be a highly

dangerous and probably embarrassing situation in which anyone might be involved. I thought that his metaphor was interesting. I also support what the Opposition Front Bench speakers have said.
I was a member of the Government who introduced the first Price Commission. It is incumbent upon me to make clear that I justify my support of the amendment by saying that when we introduced the original Price Commission and Price Code it was very much in our minds that it was a temporary measure. It was firmly written into the Bill that it should be temporary and related to one set of circumstances.
In Committee the Secretary of State withdrew some of the proposals in relation to the Price Code. It is the permanent nature of the Commission which worries us. The Secretary of State is aware of this concern, because I had the privilege of making representations to him in another capacity. As a Member of Parliament, I must make clear that I am concerned because I believe that this provision is unnecessary. The provision to leave these reviewing powers in the hands of the Price Commission is wrong.
I understand the argument against monopolistic powers, but I believe that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is the right body to handle this. If it requires additional powers, they should be provided through a Bill relating to that Commission. It is not necessary for the Price Commission to be involved. Those outside for whom I have the privilege to speak—the distributive interests and the retailers—feel most strongly that a dangerous precedent is being set. They are totally opposed to the permanent continuation of this kind of power.
When hon. Members talk about lack of competition, I reply that that proposition cannot be sustained in relation to retailing. There is no keener competition anywhere in the world than in the High Streets of this country. That competition, and not the provisions of legislation such as this, is the real safeguard of the housewife's interests. If we keep that fundamental thought clearly before us, we can be far more realistic when dealing with legislation. As long as that competition exists, as it undoubtedly does, the housewife benefits.
Evidence of that is given clearly in the report of the Price Commission which shows how far below the levels of profit that would be tolerated by the Price Commission's own rules are the levels of profit of our retailers. Those levels are kept extremely low. The Government's figures show that there is no necessity for additional powers in this matter.
The Secretary of State argues that he wants these powers so that he may be selective in his approach. I understand that there must be a degree of selectivity but I do not believe that the paraphernalia of the Price Commission is necessary for this purpose. I have always held the view, as do those whom I represent, that a continuation of this is tolerable only as long as there is a continuation of a clear period of pay restraint. The linking of the two, which was proposed in the first Price Commission proposals under the previous Government, can, I think, be justified as being tolerable. A permanent Price Commission when there is no intention to have a permanent continuation of pay control seems unfair and inappropriate. Therefore, the amendment does not go far enough. But as it is going in the right direction it has my full support.
I hope that on second thoughts the Secretary of State will accept the amendment, because it would enable him to have the powers that he wants but it would not give this body the permanence which I believe is wrong and in respect of which I hope he will reconsider his views.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I have always opposed the televising of the proceedings of the House. However, in view of the absence of the non-payroll Bench Members, I wish that my constituents could see that there are no Labour Back Bench Members here when we are discussing this important Bill, which deals with prices and the Price Commission.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my hon. Friend perhaps being a little unfair? I gather that some Government supporters have been arrested today. Perhaps that may account for their absence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member himself has only just appeared for the first time this afternoon.

Mr. MacKay: Government supporters, whether present or elsewhere, should realise that the overwhelming majority of the electorate are concerned about prices. Housewives would be ill disposed towards a party which could not find one Back Bench Member of Parliament to be present at a debate on the Price Commission.
I endorse the coments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who stated that competition has always kept prices stable and at a reasonable level. Some of the highest price increases—and some of the price increases that have most affected my constituents—have been those in the nationalised sector, where there is no competition. I think, for example, of the latest gas and electricity price increases and, from last week, the latest increases in postal charges. These are prime examples of lack of competition and of a monopoly trying to put its prices sky high against the public interest.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. John Moore: What action did the existing Price Commission take on such price increases?

Mr. MacKay: We would not have had the postal increases which we have just had if the existing Commission had taken the necessary action. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is well able to control prices, and the proposed Price Commission is completely unnecessary. I am totally against any price control, but when we are trying to be conciliatory and to help the Government I am more than willing to support the amendment. It is highly reasonable and I cannot understand why the Secretary of State will not accept it.
One or two reasons have been given in the past. First, it is suggested that permanency is the only way of attracting satisfactory members to the Commission. That is a ridiculous argument when we know that many Labour politicians are applying to be parliamentary candidate for Birmingham, Ladywood. People of great calibre seem, prepared, therefore, to take on a position with an uncertain future.
If, as Ministers have often told us, inflation will be under control next year, why do we need a permanent Price Commission? If it is reviewed from year to year, when inflation is under control it can


be suspended. There is also doubt that wages policy will last beyond August 1978. It would be foolish to continue price control in those circumstances.
I am concerned about the effect of the Price Commission on small businesses. The people in small businesses are already overlegislated about and overburdened with bureaucracy. These are the people who cannot cope and who will be badly affected by this proposal. They are normally competitive and keep their prices down, giving the housewife a good deal. A Price Commission which will further cut incentives and drive the self-employed out of business will do much long-term harm to our economy.
On a day when it has been revealed that nearly 1½ million people are out of work, this is a sad and dangerous time to be further restricting business and, therefore, reducing jobs. I ask the Secretary of State to consider the amendment, which is a logical compromise. Many of us have had to go some way to come to this proposal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do the same. The whole House would appreciate it.

Mr. John Moore: I was unable to serve on the Standing Committee, but it is clear that those who did so must have laboured long and hard. I have little technical knowledge in this field, but I was impressed by the authority and background knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I was surprised that the Minister did not intervene in his speech since my right hon. Friend speaks with one of the most authoritative voices on the subject.
Although I am not technically competent, I have strong prejudices on this subject. The record, going further back than merely the present Government's period of office, shows that Price Commission-type bodies are not just negative but are positively disastrous in their attempts to intervene in society. The Bill attempts to introduce more permanency. Philosophically, we should discuss the amendment from the point of view of limiting the Commission's life to one year. I see that there are now two Liberal Members present; that must be a record for this debate.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Try to be original.

Mr. Moore: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene? Earlier, his hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) argued that the collectivist State was irrelevant but then went on to say that we needed the Price Commission structures.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Who is this Member, anyway? I have never seen him before.

Mr. Moore: I have certainly seen the hon. Gentleman before, but I will not say how I know, because that would lead me into personal remarks. The Liberals are distracting me by their unaccustomed presence.
A limitation to one year might limit this obnoxious form of Government intervention. We only have to look at other Government bodies to see how permanent they become after three years.
A major problem with this Parliament, as with others, is the degree to which we can control the governmental processes in the interests of, for example, the consumer. We have seen how unconcerned the Government are about their inability to retain the confidence of the House in the matter of Supply. They ignore all the normal conventions. Those who, like me, have been privileged to serve on the Public Accounts Committee will know—the criticism is not limited to one political party—that Select Committees have few tools with which to test and examine the processes of government, especially of quasi-governmental bodies outside the control of Parliament. They have very little teeth and, even if they decide to make a recommendation there is no guarantee that adequate time will be allowed for discussion.
Surely here is an opportunity for the Government to accept an amendment which in essence says "We want to come once a year to Parliament to allow parliamentary scrutiny, to allow parliamentary consideration, whichever party is in power". To that extent it would allow an annual re-examination of the workings of the Price Commission to see whether it was carrying out the job that it was supposed to carry out.
I would not have thought that that was a particularly onerous suggestion. I would have thought that those who would like to see the development of further parliamentary control, those who are concerned to see respect brought back to


Parliament as an institution, would be leaping up from the opposite Benches to try to support such a suggestion as opposed to creating a system in which those of us who seek through regular parliamentary debate to analyse the workings of institutions not directly reporting on an annual basis know that we cannot do so.
I would have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have similar objections to mine would be eager to support this very reasonable amendment limiting these provisions to one year. That is all the amendment does.

Mr. Adley: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the Government's business managers have perhaps thought this through possibly rather further ahead than he has done, as they are introducing the Bill when they know that they will no longer be in Government by the time the three-year period is up? Therefore, does not my hon. Friend agree with me that what they want to do is to make sure that the Bill, with its bureaucratic structure, remains as a monument to their memory once they have passed from office at the hands of the people at the General Election, and that it would be for the incoming Conservative Government to take up parliamentary time in rescinding it? Is that not the real reason why the Government are resisting the amendment?

Mr. Moore: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the point I was going to make. That is the degree to which the limitations of the Government are quite apparent to us all. Obviously the Civil Service, because of the desire to create a degree of permanency, recognises that this Government will not last beyond a year. To that extent it is necessary to build into this organisation a permanency, knowing that the present Government party will not be in office beyond that year.
It is clear that the civil servants will be listening very carefully to the lengthy debate from this side of the House, a debate which has made it quite clear from all parts of the Opposition—the only Opposition that really counts—that when this party comes to office within a year we shall have very clear attitudes that will not lead to a permanent Price

Commission. Therefore, I think that the point of the debate in terms of arguing for limitations, even if the Government are not wise enough to recognise and accept it, is a key point to those from the Civil Service who are listening.
One of the factors which makes me very concerned not to see this whole Price Commission structure go beyond one year into permanency is that over the last three, four or five years we have created a fraudulent atmosphere in the public at large. We have given the impression that within this Chamber, in pieces of legislation such as this, we are not having any moderating effect on prices. Those who know this area at all and who practise in any kind of business know how fraudulent this is, whichever party introduces such attempts at legislation.
I recognise full well the need to control, investigate and pursue monopolistic practices. That is an entirely different and valid area. I am talking about the creation of a fraudulent atmosphere in Society which gives the illusion that by setting up an organisation such as is proposed our task is finished, that we have now effected the, price structure within Britain and that every housewife should kneel down at night and thank the Government. That is total rubbish. We all know it. Creating this body as a permanent structure only adds to the fraudulent nature of the claim. It also creates deeper cynicism about the political processes of Parliament.
6.45 p.m.
I should have thought that those who wish to see this Parliament and parliamentary government as a whole regain a degree of respectability would be more than willing, whichever party was in power, to submit themselves to the judgment of this House each year on the basis of this particular kind of legislation. I say "each year". Is that asking too much of a Government who, tragically, still unnecessarily cling to office? Even if they do, what is wrong with coming to the same Parliament next year and asking "Is it right or is it wrong?" That is all we are asking. Is that not democracy? Surely we should argue for the amendment.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: The purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, is linked irrevocably to three items. One


is that there is an agreement on pay which has to be supported by this Bill. I hope that the Government have been more successful in their talks today than they have been in the recent past in bringing that about. If they are successful in those talks today, then surely that need will pass within the foreseeable future.
Secondly, the Government need to hold down prices. The Secretary of State, supported by the Chancellor in many of his recent expositions on the anticipated rate of inflation at this year end—whether we are to believe him, on the basis of previous expositions on that same theme, is rather doubtful—has shown some confidence. But if the prices are held down, as the Government think they will be, surely the Commission will have lost its need as well.
The third reason is the need that the Secretary of State has expressed for long-term surveillance over trading practices in industry. I would remind the Minister of the Secretary of State's own words on this very point. In a speech to the Industrial Society, which has been quoted before in debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that
when inflation is finally overcome and there is no further need for margin control and price restraint, the power to investigate a price and freeze will remain an important part of competition policy. Perhaps it will be exercised by a new agency that properly combines our competition and prices policy".
The Secretary of State has expressed the likelihood of a need for a new body to carry out the functions which the Price Commission is not meant to carry out. Therefore, in so far as the Bill relies on those three elements for its existence and need for the future, if my projections are in any way proved to be correct it will demise.
It therefore comes to a question whether it is necessary for the Government to have a continuing permanent Price Commission in their relationship with Parliament and with people outside. Surely the Government are aware of the growing desire among people throughout the country to have less rather than more government.
Previous speakers have drawn the attention of the House to the sad decline in profitability which companies have had to face because of the existence of the Price Commission so far. They would

certainly support the need for less Government intervention.
With gross margins permitted under the Price Code of 90 per cent, at 1973 reference levels, it is absurd to expect industries and companies to invest as the Government hope they will and as they continue to invoke them to do. The Chancellor, at Guildhall on 31st January 1977, said:
Firms will only expand and invest if they can see scope for making profits.
How can the Government expect those firms to invest when their return on capital has declined from 10·6 per cent, in 1964 to 2 per cent, in 1975? This point was made emphatically by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
At the other end of the spectrum, people want less government in their lives. They have to pay the taxes for the bureaucracy to administer the Price Commission. It is nonsense to expect people to be prepared to pay those taxes for a Price Commission which in the evolution of life may become unnecessary.
The relationship between the Government and Parliament has been touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). It is worth stressing that the Government are too little accountable to the House. If the Government seek permanency for the Price Commission now, they are immediately saying to the House "We do not wish to come back and discuss its need in future."
The amendment, in a most reasonable way, suggests that the Government should come back to the House and answer questions about the Price Commission's existence at some future date. The situation may have changed at some future date. Life is not static; it is evolving. We ought to know that on this day of all days, at the height of the summer, as the sun starts going down from this day on. [An HON. MEMBER: "What summer?"] What Bill?
On this midsummer day, let us remind ourselves that as the sun goes down the Commission should start running down so that one year hence, when the sun has come up again, we can re-inspect it.
The hon. Members for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) have said that they dislike elements in the Bill. If they dislike


elements in the Bill, surely this amendment is worthy of their support. Only by supporting the amendment will they have an opportunity guaranteed to them in a year's time of re-inspecting the application of the Bill under the same circumstances then or under circumstances as they have evolved. I therefore feel that it is unworthy of them to have spoken as they did and not to support the amendment in the Lobby.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) has echoed many sentiments expressed by other of my hon. Friends in deploring the way in which the Price Commission and the paraphernalia provided under the Bill will become a permanent feature of the legislative landscape. I should like to add my voice to that chorus in support of the amendment.
I feel very strongly that the attitude displayed by the Liberal Party in supporting an amendment along similar lines in Committee and apparently failing to do so on this occasion is a great shame. We have made a substantial concession to the views and wishes of Members of other parties by ameliorating the provisions of the original amendment that was moved by the Conservatives in Committee. In my view, for them now to come forward and to suggest that they are not prepared to accept this amendment because they feel that on the ending of the pay policy it would be better to assimilate this Commission within the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, is illogical.
The wording of the Liberal amendment, to which we shall come later, provides only for Parliament to say that it "may"—not "shall"—be assimilated into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Therefore, there is still the possibility, even if that amendment is carried, that this Commission will continue long after the pay policy has finished. That is a material point of which the Liberals should be made aware, if they are not already, and should be brought to account for.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Liberals supporting an amendment in Committee. Is he not aware that, unfortunately, no

Liberal Member served on the Standing Committee on this Bill? Is he further aware that at present the Fair Trading Act 1973, initiated by the then Conservative Government, would not permit the amalgamation of this Commission with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? We have not heard any indication that Conservative Members would support the necessary amendment of that legislation.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: My hon. Friend will no doubt clearly remember that in my opening remarks I made it clear that the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies Commission should be strengthened and reinforced in the manner indicated by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright).

Mr. Nelson: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has answered the point made by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Perhaps I may correct a slip on my part. I meant that the support given by the Liberal Party on Second Reading to our objections to many aspects of the Bill in its entirety led us to suspect that they would support this amendment, especially as we have substantially ameliorated the proposal since the Committee stage, which no doubt the hon. Member for Colne Valley like many other hon. Members, will have read in detail and with great interest.
I am particularly concerned about the legislative provision for the permanence of the Price Commission. I believe that it will further undermine confidence in industry, which at the moment is making a very slow but delicate revival. It is clear from the latest figures published by the Central Statistical Office that the revival in industrial production is not only very sluggardly but is substantially below the most modest of the Government's expectations.
Looking at the extent to which industry is able to make an adequate return on capital, the present rate is under 4 per cent., in real terms. Considering the cost of borrowing money, to industry let alone to individuals or other groups, it is clear that for industry to invest and provide for a substantial level of production in future it will be looking towards retained profits as a substantial part of the contribution towards its own investment costs. Therefore, any procedures that have a substantial impact on restraining the extent to


which companies will be able fairly to retain profits and, in a cyclical situation, perhaps larger profits in one period than another, is to be regretted.
On previous occasions we have heard from the Minister that the operation of the Price Code has, over recent years, resulted in tangible reductions in the level of prices. These have been quantified and effectively passed on to the consumer. However, it is equally clear from the figures that have been quoted that this is a drop in the ocean and that it has had very little impact on the macro-economic control of prices. I believe that the paraphernalia of intervention, of freezing and of price restraint set up under the Bill and to be perpetuated, if the amendment is not passed, will do further substantial damage to the delicate revival of industrial confidence. Added to that, the bureaucratic nature of these provisions and the further requirements that they will undoubtedly place on many companies make this a negative piece of legislation to which to give any permanence.
I believe that return on capital is one of the most central features that we should be discussing at this time. It goes to the heart of the Bill. If companies are unable to make adequate margins of profit, due to further restraint, our economic position compared with that of other industrial countries with which we have to compete will still be further undermined.
The CSO figures on industrial production, to which I referred earlier, which are in part a reflection of some of the Government's legislation over recent years, show that such legislation has resulted in a poor economic and industrial performance compared with our European and OECD competitors. This is brought out in the CSO report, which admits that
the underlying level of industrial output rose slowly in recent months.
The index of industrial production was 0·1 up in the first quarter of this year on what it was in the fourth quarter of last year and only 0·1 up on what it was in February 1974. That is hardly a reflection of a successful industrial strategy being pursued by the Government. Nor is it a reflection of the success of the Price Code.
7.0 p.m.
The Minister says that the provisions in the Bill, which, he claims, justify its

permanence, have been inserted not only for economic but for social reasons. He says that after a reduction in the rate of inflation he will have a statutory mechanism to provide for control over wider trading aspects of companies and, indeed, excess profits and pricing. In my view he is not really seeking a social advantage; he is seeking a practical negotiating point for further discussions on a wages pact.
It is equally clear that in the forthcoming 12 months of wage restraint it will be more difficult to achieve anything more than a fig leaf or a blank piece of paper to wave at the City of London in terms of a pay policy. This was not the case when the Bill was originally introduced. With that change in circumstances, when it is clear that far less tangible agreement will be reached on pay restraint in the next year, there is at least a case for arguing that a far less specific commitment should be made towards price and dividend restraint in the next year.
For those reasons I believe that the principle of concurrence with the wages policy is important that a change in the stringency of one should affect the stringency of the other. It undoubtedly justifies the passing of the amendment. 1 would regret a further institution or Government agency which, after our economic problems had been brought under control, was able to exercise wide ranging and discretionary powers of intervention which might overlap the powers of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It could also be a recipe for abuse. Although present Ministers might not abuse it in that way, radical members of the Labour Home Policy Committee, if they had their way, would. Threats such as they have made make us cautious about giving sanction to provisions such as these.
For those reasons it is prudent and justifiable that we should pass the amendment. It would give the House a yearly opportunity to debate whether the Price Code and the Price Commission should be continued. It would give us the opportunity of deciding whether the restrictive inquiries and procedures provided in the Bill should be maintained. I support the amendment.

Mr. Adley: I am glad to have the opportunity of supporting my hon. Friend


the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson). I note in particular his reference to the dichotomy of view between the left wing of the Labour Party and the Government. No fewer than 12 Tribune Group amendments appear on the Notice Paper. I am delighted to see that we now have one member of the Tribune Group in the Chamber.

Mr. Loyden: I have been here all the time.

Mr. Adley: My eyesight is fairly good and I am not yet forced to wear glasses. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) has not been here all the time. He is now in a minority among a number of his colleagues whose absence from the Chamber has been noticeable. Their presence elsewhere in London will have been noted by those who have been watching the affairs at Grunwick's. Perhaps they are more concerned about getting their names in the papers than they are about supporting their amendments.
The amendment gives hon. Members such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), who did not serve on the Committee, the opportunity to take part in the debate.
I should like to amplify a number of comments made by many of my hon. Friends about the proliferation of paper and verbiage which this Government have produced for a whole series of Bills. My own Government was not entirely blameless, either. The Long Title of the Bill states that it is:
To make further provision about the Price Commission and prices and charges, and to amend the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 and the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975.
That sounds grand and fine, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central said—who really believes that all these words and all this paper will have any influence whatsoever on the price of cabbages, tea, or food of any kind, or on all the household commodities that are essentials of life for our people today?
For a country such as ours, which I believe imports more food than any other nation, it is nothing less than a cruel deceit to pretend to our constituents that what we are doing today will do more than tinker at the edges of the cost of living for them.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does not the Bill do more than that—and less? It not only tinkers on the edges; it causes senior executives of retail distribution firms to spend time working out ways round the controls and ways of making profit out of the items that are not controlled by the Bill. Is that not positively damaging, as well as tinkering on the edges?

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) makes an important point. The tax laws have turned this country into a nation of fiddlers. Legislation such as this causes people to spend far more time getting round it than on productive activities.
As the House knows, I have connections with a hotel company, in an executive position. I know of the inordinate amount of time that my colleagues have to spend in satisfying busybody officials about the rules and regulations that have been imposed by successive Governments in vain attempts to contain inflation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) made a notable contribution earlier in this debate and pointed out that the Government should concentrate on increasing investment in industry and finding ways of combating a tax system that discourages people from working, instead of spending hours playing with words to introduce a Government Bill that will do little to affect the cost of living.
What worries me about the Government's attitude to this amendment is that it illustrates their general attitude towards bureaucracy, and also towards private enterprise. It illustrates what the Labour Party has always believed—that the State and Whitehall know best.
I have just served on the Committee considering the Passenger Vehicle (Experimental Areas) Bill. We have spent time trying to remove nonsenses from that Bill, all of which were proposed by the Department of Transport. Instead of concentrating on Bills such as this the Government should find ways of solving the youth employment problem or of improving the taxation system.
How nice it is to have my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. MacKay) with us. He is a man of practical common sense and replaces his predecessor,


who has gone off to lush pastures in Europe. My hon. Friend made the point—I think that he spoke for many Opposition Members—that we do not like the implications behind the Bill that Big Brother Price Commission knows best and Big Brother Government knows best. However, in the Conservative Party we have made an attempt to come to terms with the philosophy of the Bill in order to prove that we are not opposed in principle to trying to do anything practical about inflation. But it would be a great deal more encouraging to those of us who have taken this conciliatory attitude if we could feel that the Government today were prepared to accept the amendment.
Another point that is relevant to the activities of the Price Commission in its attempts to control inflation is the Government's lamentable record in trying to support a currency that used to be valued at$2·40 to the pound. We have had three substantial bouts of devaluation since the war, and they have all taken place under Labour Governments.
When, as I have said, we live in a country that has to import vast quantities of food—more than any other country—one of the greatest causes of inflation and of the increase in the cost of living is the money that we have to pay overseas to cover the costs of our food imports. How wonderful it would be to look forward to a time—we shall certainly not see it under the present Government—when our currency can be restored, we hope, to something like its value when the present Government came to office.
I conclude my brief remarks by saying that I hope that the Government will support the amendment. Once again, I see that we are blessed with no Liberal Members in the Chamber. They come in occasionally, make a few sedentary remarks, and then disappear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) suggested, how much longer do Liberal Members think that they can get away with this charade of trying to prove to the people that they really mean to support moves put forward to return this nation towards a sane economic policy, while making sure that they actually do nothing in the Lobbies to bring that about? It must be a very difficult balancing exercise to make a speech say-

ing that one agrees entirely with what the amendment says and with the Conservative Party's philosophy on this, that and the other issue, but when it comes to voting, to say that one is very sorry but one will be in the other Lobby.
I have always been under the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker—no doubt you will correct me if I am wrong—that there is something in "Erskine May" that forbids an hon. Member from speaking in one way and voting differently.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Gentleman starts invoking "Erskine May", I think he will find that he is rather getting out of order in regard to the amendment that is being discussed.

Mr. Adley: I shall not succumb to that temptation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I most certainly would not wish to incur your wrath. All that I can say is that many of us look forward to the time when the Liberal Party puts its vote where its mouth is. Liberal Members will not be doing it on this amendment. As we progress further on the Bill, no doubt we shall find that situation arising again.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman makes very serious allegations indeed, for which there is not a scintilla of foundation. Would he be prepared to quote a single sentence in my speech that would indicate that I supported what he has been pleased to elevate and to call Conservative philosophy? Will he give a quotation to substantiate his allegation?

Mr. Adley: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he believed in competition, yet the mere existence of the Price Commission in the form as proposed under the Bill for an extended period of years is a direct threat to competition. If the hon. Gentleman would like further examples, I should be happy to go and collect his Hansard references.

Mr. Mike Noble: The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, with reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), that his eyesight was very good. Perhaps he would give the House the benefit of some knowledge about his hearing, because he was not present when the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was speaking.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman assumes that the only place in which one can hear a debate is sitting here in one's seat. There are other ways. One can be elsewhere in this building and do so. The hon. Gentleman is a new Member. Perhaps he has not discovered that if he goes out of the door, turns right along the corridor, takes the second door along on the left and goes up one flight of stairs, it is quite easy to have a look at what hon. Members have been saying during the debate. Before he makes any more immature interventions of that sort, perhaps he will learn to find his way around the building.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. Twice I have been about to resume my seat. I conclude by saying that the Government would be doing the country a service if they accepted the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim).

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: I shall be brief. I want first to deal with one of the points made by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley). Other than responding to the calls of nature, green cards and telephone messages, I have been on the Back Benches since 2.30 p.m., so I suggest that the hon. Gentleman sees a good optician at the first opportunity.
The Government should take heart from the debate and from the statements made by Opposition Members. In spite of the inconsistency and contradictory nature of the contributions of Opposition Members, for the first time we have an indication of the Opposition's regard for Government policy generally, because we have heard more than one Conservative Member on that subject, in particular, one hon. Member who raised the question when the sun will rise. It was my view that the Opposition have consistently said that for the present Government the sun would never rise at all. It is at least an expression of the Opposition's growing intelligence about matters that they now indicate that in about 12 months' time the sun will possibly be shining very brightly. That, again, gives a fair indication of what lies in minds of Conservative Members in terms of the Government's general strategy on this and other matters.
In that sense, I do not accept that the Bill will meet all the requirements that I would want in terms of prices. Many of my hon. Friends have expressed some concern, and this has been reflected in amendments tabled by some of my hon. Friends who are members of the Tribune Group and by other Back Benchers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said, one of the reasons why a greater presence on the Government Back Benches has not been felt is that none of the amendments that we have tabled has been called. That is one of the reasons why there has been a falling interest in the Bill. Nevertheless, we still argue that while the present situation exists, there must be a Price Commission Bill.
One of the things that come clearly out of the discussion is the fact of the power elements that exist outside the House. I was astounded to hear a Member of Parliament saying that no matter what sort of legislation this place may pass in terms of a Price Commission Bill it will be meaningless in terms of its ability to control prices. To some extent I agree, because the real power that exists outside Parliament is the thing with which we are constantly in conflict. Within a pluralist society it is the Government's responsibility to contain those powers as far as possible.
I noticed that when the question of wage restrictions and controls was being discussed, Conservative Members never dealt with it in the same way that they have dealt with the question of prices.

Mr. John Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loyden: I should like to carry on for a moment.
One must conclude that what Conservative Members are really arguing is that they are prepared to accept restrictions on wages and rigorous control of them but are not prepared, at the same time, to see prices controlled in the same way.

Mr. John Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Loyden: The analysis of that sort of argument is simply their support of dramatic cuts in the living standard of the vast majority of our people.

Mr. John Moore: Will the hon. Gentleman now give way?

Mr. Loyden: One of the most important problems facing this country, at present reflected in the anger of people who do their shopping day by day, has been the rise in the cost of living, and at this stage that is what is uppermost in people's minds. Therefore, it is essential that a Bill be brought in. We should like to see the Bill strengthened and we should like to deal with the situation.

Mr. John Moore: The hon. Member referred to remarks that I made. I make it quite clear that, speaking for myself, I completely agree that it was absolutely wrong to attempt to restrict or restrain wages and prices. Both attempts are irrelevant. One of the prime problems in this country is the appallingly low level of wages of most of the people.

Mr. Loyden: With due respect, in making their case the Opposition argue that the Bill is a fraud. If it is a fraud, and meaningless, how can they say, several sentences later, that it will so affect the profitability of industry as to put its whole future in danger? These are the contradictory and confusing statements that Conservatives make on the Bill.
Whether we like it or not, we live in a plural society. The power of the trade unions has been curbed considerably in regard to wage negotiations. There is no free collective bargaining. In that situation, within the limitations of Parliament, the Government are bound to seek ways and means to control prices. Many of my hon. Friends would like to see the Bill strengthened. Nothing has come from the Opposition by way of argument for the strengthening of the Bill. If the Opposition are conscious of the need to control prices, they have made no serious contribution in that connection. In my view, the whole of the Conservative Party's opposition to the Bill is a fraud.

Mr. Adley: Does the hon. Member believe in encouraging the profitability of industry?

Mr. Loyden: The question of the profitability of industry is correlated to prices, and if the hon. Gentleman does not accept the correlation between prices and profits, he ought to go back to wherever he came from and study it again. I look at profits in the sense that they have a direct effect upon prices.

There are many examples which I could quote of enormous profits being made. One instance is the brewing industry. We see no reflection of that industry's vast profits in a lowering of the prices of its products.
There are many areas in which prices are rising unnecessarily. If this Bill means aught else, it is that the Government are beginning, by this process, to gain some control over the prices sector. It therefore merits our support. If Conservative Members really want to argue that the present price levels are unacceptable, they should support measures that attempt to control them.

Mr. Adley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that in the food industry, for example, the profitable companies are invariably those which are most competitive, and that the food companies that make profits do so because they are able to attract the custom of the housewife on a competitive basis? Does he accept that?

Mr. Loyden: Anyone who travels around as I do, visiting stores and other places, will have noticed the enormous expenditure on what every shopper considers to be unnecessary changes. Every week, departments are moved either upstairs or downstairs. They are continually being shifted all over the place, and massive amounts of money are being spent in making these unnecessary changes. The same argument applies to public houses. I know one public house that has changed its interior three times in as many years. Activities of that sort are helping to strip away the wealth of the nation in the most abusive way. It is necessary for the Government to gain control over the situation.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Mr. Ron Thomas rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I appeal to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and to the House to keep closely to the amendment. Hon. Members are going very wide of it. We have just had references to stores and public houses.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that the obvious message that should go out from this House is


that the Tories are opposed to any kind of price control?

Mr. Loyden: I agree entirely with that observation, which is borne out by the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members.
The amendment deals with the lifetime of the Bill and, as I have argued previously, it is necessary to take into account the growing power of fewer and fewer people in controlling industry. This means that price regulation and price tendencies are also in the hands of fewer and fewer people. That power must be matched, and it can be done only by the Government intervening in the most positive fashion in this area.
If the Government fail to gain control of this situation they will certainly put themselves in peril at the next General Election. Much of the intention of the Bill is acceptable to my hon. Friends and myself, but we should like to see it strengthened during its passage. We hope that the Minister will see fit to deal with some of the matters that we raised in Committee and will strengthen the Bill on Report.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) started by disagreeing with certain elements in the Bill and went on to misinterpret most of the speeches made in the debate so far. He ended with a certain disagreement with elements within the Bill. I presume, therefore, that he will be supporting the amendment, proposed so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in order to give himself and other hon. Members a chance to improve the Bill in whichever way they wish to do so in a year's time.

Mr. Viggers: I can fully understand the concern of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and his anger in regard to prices. The fact is that £1 in 1974 is now worth about 55p, and many of his hon. Friends and supporters have been looking around for someone who is felt to be responsible, because they cannot believe that it could be the Government. We hear criticism of the common agricultural policy, the Common Market and so on, but the fact is that inflation last year was running at

about 26 per cent. and this year the figure is about 17 per cent.
Many people, the Government among them, are looking for a way of controlling inflation. I suppose that that is the purpose behind the Bill, but it shows a complete misunderstanding and misconception of the causes of inflation and the ways of rectifying it.
A proper application of inflation accounting will show that companies have not been making a satisfactory return on capital employed during the last few years. It will also show that, bearing in mind the amount of the cost that companies have to pay to borrow money and the level of inflation, they have actually been making losses in real terms in many ways. Companies have been seeking to rectify their shortage of investment capital by rights issues. What they have not been able to do is to balance their books by keeping retained profits.
The whole of the Price Commission paraphernalia is based on the theory that prices can be kept down by statute and by ministerial edict. It is easy to see how people fall into this misconception, because politicians tend to have too lofty a concept of what they are capable of doing. Politicians think that they can do much more than they can. They think that they can rectify situations which they are not capable of rectifying and which are better left to market forces.
Faced with the enormous inflation that we have seen and with real hardship among working families, the Government feel that they have to do something. Therefore they bring forward a Bill to try to keep down prices, based on a complete misconception. The position is completely different. Companies will not invest unless they are receiving a proper return on capital employed. Faced with the present disadvantageous position, companies need encouragement rather than discouragement. It is quite wrong for the Government to bring in a Price Commission Bill which seeks by means of price levels to restrict the profits of companies.
The hon. Member for Garston was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) to say whether he accepted that there was a correlation between prices


and profits. The hon. Member for Garston is always anxious to say that he left the Chamber only for the cause of nature or green cards. It seems that one of those things has come over him. But everyone knows that there is a correlation between prices and profits. Obviously there is. Obviously the correlation is an inverse one. The higher prices are, the higher profits will be. If prices are restricted, profits will also be restricted. What we seek to do is encourage fair competition and discourage unfair competition. Within those parameters we wish to see profit and healthy competition.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that there is no positive correlation between high profit and capital investment? Many firms which have made high profits have failed the British economy by not investing for a couple of decades to regenerate British industry.

Mr. Viggers: This could become a philosophical argument that would take some time to follow through to its natural conclusion. I urge the hon. Gentleman to accept that if companies can see the prospect of a good return on capital employed they will invest. If, however, they do not see the prospect of a good return on the capital employed, they will not invest.
Much of the misconception on the Government Benches is based on the fact that some companies—banks and others—have been returning high profits but that part of the capital which they need to service is enormous and the rate of return, looked at in profit terms based on proper inflation accounting, is not particularly high. This is an argument that I could happily continue with for a long time, but obviously there is not much point in doing so at the moment.

Mr. Godber: It seems to me that the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) is relevant, since the Bill is surely the easiest way of discouraging investment because of the total uncertainty that it creates.

Mr. Viggers: My right hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this subject and I accept his point. I am grateful to him for making it.
One comes to the question of what is the purpose of the Bill. There are two answers that one can give. The first is that it is part of the deal with the unions and that it is part of the Government's concept of their management of the economy that they should have a short-term Bill that will enable them to reach short-term arrangements with the unions and others. In other words, it helps the Government to reach a fig leaf of understanding and agreement and protects them from full frontal failure.
That is one possibility which would indeed be fulfilled if the Opposition's amendment were accepted, because the Government would then have a small piece of string with which to adjust their fig leaf and they could come to this House with some confidence that it was a weapon in their armoury with which to negotiate with the unions. The amendment would give the Government what they wish. But the other way of looking at the Bill is to say that it imposes a set of permanent controls. That is utterly different, and that would make the Bill as it stands a completely different Bill.
I maintain that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has a bit of a non-job. He is an energetic right hon. Member who is seeking to make the best out of his non-job. The question is, who is best able to judge the most efficient way of serving the consumer? Is it the companies operating in that area, or is it the civil servants? Put another way, is it the job of the Government and civil servants to make Marks and Spencer as efficient as British Railways? Is it the job of the civil servants and the Government to strengthen competition? I maintain that a great deal of courage is needed by the Government to stand back and say to the British consumer that they are not able to control prices in the way that they seek to control them. To accept the Bill unamended will mean yet more bureaucratic control and yet more interference with commerce.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would emphasise the fact that the latest estimate for the administration of the Bill is £8·5 million a year. That is the latest estimate, which rather strengthens the point that my hon. Friend is endeavouring to make.

Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, as always, makes a most valid and cogent point. It is so easy for Ministers to come to the House and say "We shall create a Commission as a way of rectifying a problem"—namely, inflation and high prices. It is easy for them to accept that but so difficult for them to stand fast against creating such an authority. Yet every time a new authority is created it costs money, and every time jobs are created money is spent and it becomes increasingly difficult for those jobs to be taken away again and for the money to be saved. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is our money."] In fact, it is the taxpayers' money which has to be raised through taxes, rates and other Government measures.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend remind the House who it was who made the invariably forgotten comment about Royal Commissions taking minutes and wasting years? I wonder what the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) would say about the Price Commission in one of his less guarded moments.

Mr. Viggers: I am also grateful for that helpful contribution of my hon. Friend. It is, indeed, easy to create a commission to consider a subject and to pontificate, but it is difficult to stand still and say "No, we cannot do this". I believe that on every Minister's desk there should be a sign which says "Do not just do something. Sit there.", because sitting there is actually more difficult than doing something. To give the illusion of movement and the impression of progress is one of the greatest inherent faults of politicians. The Bill is a typical politician's Bill because it gives the appearance and impression of progress when no progress is involved. It is merely backward movement.
I therefore urge the Government to accept the amendment. It will give them the weapon they need in discussing prices and wages with the unions, but it will not give them the longer-term permanent controls. I urge them to accept it.

Mr. John Fraser: I start by correcting what was a manufactured slight by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in which she accused my right hon. Friend of not paying tribute to Sir Arthur Cockfield. That was hardly

a fair accusation. My right hon. Friend was answering a question about the appointment of the Price Commission. Of course, one pays tribute and expresses one's gratitude to Sir Arthur for his hard work over a long period of time.
In turning to the Bill itself I ask hon. Members to study carefully the provisions that they seek to criticise. I take one example, which I think demonstrates how a number of hon. Members have largely misunderstood the effect of the Bill. I mention the example, given by other hon. Members, of small businesses. The Bill, they say, will do great harm. While some people suggest that for larger businesses it will be good they go on to argue that the powers should be given for only one year. I ask them not to undermine the confidence of small business men and to look carefully at what the Bill does.
Small businesses do not have to give notification of price increases. Small businesses are most unlikely to be subject to any kind of freeze except after sectoral investigation. If a large firm has its prices frozen, and the large firm is a back-marker, during the course of an inquiry small businesses can make representations to the Price Commission suggesting that the large price-setting firms should be given an interim price increase because of the effect on competition and the effect on other firms. They have that protection as well.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Mr. Giles Shaw rose——

Mr. Fraser: I am anxious that we should make progress. I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that does not necessarily set a precedent.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the Minister give the same kind of answer in relation to those powers exercised by the Commission with regard to distribution? In the distributive trades where gross and net margins are under control, smaller businesses are more at risk than before.

Mr. Fraser: At this point I do not want to be drawn into that discussion. Small businesses have a chance to make representations about the price of backmarkers.
The House should remember that small businesses are most unlikely to be in


competition with very large quasimonopoly suppliers. They are much more likely to be customers of large firms and in need of aid and protection from the Price Commission rather than be caught by the provisions and powers of the Bill. if one examines the only fair part of the case put for small businesses one will see that if a small business is selling something at a price that comes under the umbrella of a monopoly, when one intervenes in the monopoly price one can protect the small business price. That was the argument for the protective umbrella monopoly. I urge hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to look carefully at the provisions, which give protection for small businesses rather than impose a burden under the protection powers.

Mr. Rathbone: The Minister has left out of his analysis of small businesses vis-à-vis big businesses, the position of the supplier to big businesses. Anything that affects the purchaser of the output of a small business will affect that small business.

Mr. Fraser: I did not mention that aspect, because it was not raised during the debate.
There are three propositions that I want to examine. One with which I have sympathy and total agreement is that there should not be a rigid mathematical code of marginal controls once the voluntary pay policy has come to an end. We accept that if price controls are analogous to pay controls such as we have seen over the past two years, the two must go together. We have accepted an amendment to the Bill removing the mathematical controls—the historical levels of control—at the same time as the voluntary pay policy ends. There is no argument there.
The Opposition are also against a permanent power to investigate prices. They are opposed to that power and opposed to the institution that will exercise that power. The difference between us is that we believe that there should be a permanent price policy and a permanent sharpening of competition policy. The Opposition do not want a permanent price policy. During the four-hour debate they have given no detailed exposition of any Conservative price policy. There has been none whatever. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would have been out of

order."] Many things that have been said in the debate have been almost out of order. The Opposition could have tried to put forward an alternative policy until they were stopped by the Speaker. The fact is that they do not want an alternative policy. Of course, they agree with some kind of permanent competition policy, but as I understand it they do not want any addition to the powers in the Bill to affect existing competition policy. Perhaps the hon. Member for Gloucester will say whether she agree with all the powers in the Bill and is opposed only to the Price Commission.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I must put the Minister right straight away. I do not agree with all the powers. I think that some of the powers in the Bill might be more properly vested in the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, so that competition can be upheld as it affects pricing practise.

Mr. Fraser: Does that include the power to freeze prices? Apparently, it does not, as the hon. Lady does not respond. Perhaps she can have some consultations with her colleagues and tell us a little later whether she supports the power to freeze prices.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The Minister is splitting hairs. If, as a result of investigation or monitoring, it is found that a monopoly or near-monopoly situation exists, there should be an automatic paying back of prices. I do not think it should be done first, but it should be done retrospectively.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: The difference is narrowing. To some extent the hon. Member welcomes the powers in the Bill. Presumably she would give the Monopolies and Mergers Commission power to give a rollback of prices.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It does that now.

Mr. Fraser: There is no power for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to have a general roll-back. Perhaps we can narrow down the differences between the Tories and the Government. We believe in having permanent intervention powers to deal with prices. The hon. Lady says that she is against the institution. That is over-simplifying it. During the course of


her speech she said that she wanted a much swifter investigation of monopoly situations. The truth is that under the Fair Trading Act we do not possess the power to institute a swift and rapid investigation. I want, perhaps she wants, and many people in this House want, that situation. But we are not creating a new institution here. We are talking about the existence of an institution that was given permanent life by the Conservatives in 1973, in their Counter-Inflation Act. Of course, their code was renewable annually, but the institution was given permanent life. Therefore, the attitude of the Opposition today is not only unconstructive; it is reactionary, as it goes back beyond 1973.
The Opposition say that they are against far-reaching discretionary powers. They should read the criteria in the Fair Trading Act:
The Commission shall take into account all matters which appear to them in the particular circumstances to be relevant and, among other things, shall have regard to the desirability—

(a) of maintaining and promoting effective competition between persons supplying goods and services in the United Kingdom;
(b) of promoting the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users of goods and services in the United Kingdom"

That is a pretty wide-ranging discretionary power. The criteria are similar to the criteria in the Bill. The Commission was also to have regard to
… maintaining and promoting competitive activity in markets outside the United Kingdom. ….".
If hon. Members read the criteria in the Fair Trading Act and the powers given to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission they will find that they are far-reaching discretionary powers, which were provided by the House because it realised that only by having such powers could we deal with these matters. Therefore, we have disposed of the argument that something is wrong with the Bill and that the Commission should endure for only a year because the powers are too far-reaching.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) suggested—and he was supported by others—that in order that parliamentary control might be exercised, the Price Commission should come up for yearly review. If he follows that to its

logical conclusion, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Manpower Services Commission should also come up for annual review. That would not be in the interests of the House, nor would it constitute the proper use of our time.
Secondly, it will undermine the confidence of industry and distributors if it looks as if the Price Commission is a plant to be torn up every year to be examined, with suggestions that it may be changed. Above all, industry wants some degree of permanence and reassurance. It is a grave disadvantage to industry and to consumers to suggest that the powers and the institution in the Bill may be of a purely temporary nature.

Mr. John Moore: The Minister should address himself to the germane point involving a yearly review by Parliament. If he is concerned about the use of parliamentary time, he has only to remember how parliamentary time has been used in the past three years to realise that time spent on many of those matters would have been more usefully spent in reviewing, each year, the activities of bodies such as the Price Commission.

Mr. Fraser: I am not reviewing the past three years' parliamentary proceedings. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 gave the Price Commission powers that were not subject to the control of Parliament. The exercise of those powers are automatic and not subject to review by this House. Under the present Bill, apart from the temporary power to freeze prices for three months, subject to the right of an interim increase, one can act on the recommendation or advice of the Price Commission only by bringing an order before the House. That is a far greater degree of parliamentary control over the activities of the Commission than we have had hitherto. I ask the House to reflect on that matter when considering the question of parliamentary control.
Why do we want a permanent prices power? We want it partly to redress the imbalance between the power of the consumer—the individual, the unorganised shopper—and the power of large institutions. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) missed the point. He thought that the encouragement of competition could be brought about by having less intervention, but that is not the case.


One has to intervene, as happened in the case of television rentals, to encourage competition or to redress the effects of a lack of competition. Intervention and competition arc not inconsistent. We need to do these things to redress the balance of power between consumers and industry, because there is an enormous concentration of such power.
On Second Reading I gave an example to the effect that 40 per cent. of net manufacturing output is concentrated in the top 100 firms. Furthermore, in 1972 about a quarter of all manufacturing sectors were concentrated to such an extent that five firms accounted for more than 70 per cent. of gross output in each sector. I shall not repeat all the examples that I gave on Second Reading.
The reason why we want a permanent institution is that the imbalance between organised industry, finance and the individual unorganised consumer is so great that some power must be given to an intervening authority.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Let us get this point straight. Is the Minister now saying that the Government are in favour of a permanent Price Commission, with permanent counter-inflation powers? If so, that is not what his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said. He said that the counter-inflation powers would be temporary, and that the Price Commission should have a finite life.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Lady will appreciate that the point made by my right hon. Friend was that the code would have a finite life and that it would endure for a period of a year.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: No.

Mr. Fraser: Perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to explain. I am saying that we should have a permanent institution with permanent powers first because of the imbalance of power, and, secondly, because the powers in the Fair Trading Act and the procedures available to the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are not adequate. We need those powers to sharpen competition and to protect the consumer from the abuses that flow from lack of competition.
I have given an example that went to the Price Commission—namely, the sub-

ject of television rentals. The Price Commission in its report showed that the six major rental companies had maintained artificially high profits, which should have been eroded not by legislative intervention but by the action of the market place and the influence of competition. None of those television companies individually would have qualified as a monopoly. There might have been what is called a complex monopoly situation. That is sufficient evidence for saying that the speed of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is not sufficient to deal with the situation. That is the second reason why we require an institution with permanence.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)rose——

Mr. Fraser: No, I do not intend to give way to hon. Members who have not been present during the debate.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make clear that we do not see a permanent separation of the identity and existence of the work of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that of the Price Commission. One does not rule out the fact that at some time in the future one would like to encourage a much closer working relationship, and perhaps a unity between the two institutions and the exercise of their powers. It is not now possible to spell out how that would work in detail. We are dealing with institutions that we have inherited. We inherited from the Conservatives the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading, and also the Price Commission. This is not the time or the place to talk about the unity of the two institutions, or of their powers. I do not rule out in future a much closer working together, although I do not wish to tie myself to a timetable.
The difference between the Labour Party and the Liberals together, and the Conservatives, is that we and the Liberals want to see a development of those powers and institutions and the Conservatives, by their amendment, want to bring about their death. It is a difference between death and development. Indeed, that is the difference in this debate. It is not a bad argument for asking the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Adley: Mr. Adleyrose——

Mr. Fraser: I may be making a mistake in giving way to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley).

Mr. Adley: The Minister may think it is a mistake to give way to me, but will he admit that what he has said means that the Labour and Liberal Parties believe that bureaucracy and the State machine can solve the nation's problems, whereas the Conservatives believe in trusting people, reducing taxation, and letting them get on with the job, and thus reducing inflation?

Mr. Fraser: I said it was a mistake to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and so it has proved. I do not see how a philosophy of "trusting the people" could automatically control the behaviour of the 40 per cent. of net manufacturing output that is concentrated in the top 100 firms. That does not follow. In that situation there must be intervention.
I turn finally to the question of confidence. I believe that to give a temporary life to the Commission and a temporary existence to its powers will undermine the confidence of industry. It may be that people will then start to put off investment decisions for one year, hoping that the institution will be abolished, or that this may happen after a period of one year. Industry wants certainty and security, and those factors would be undermined if this amendment were to be agreed to.

Mr. Baker: Mr. Baker rose——

Mr. Fraser: This is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the spirit of generosity in which the Minister is answering this debate, but his argument is absurd. He is saying that industry wants certainty, and that if it felt that this whole panoply and paraphernalia of control and intervention and freeze could be withheld for a year it would make industry uncertain about its investment decisions. He is saying that companies may postpone their investment decisions at the end of that year. This implies that a panoply of controls will deter firms from investing this year. It is absurd to suggest that the one way in which to give confidence and stability to industry is to say

"This is what we shall do for industry—we shall introduce a freeze on prices. It will upset your investment decisions, but do not worry, because it will last not for a year, but for ever."

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Fraser: It means that a group of firms that can abuse its powers in the market place might decide to wait until there was no longer any control or investigation. It would be a mistake, and it would undermine the confidence and security of industry, if the Price Commission ran from year to year. The Opposition are most anxious to manufacture a paranoid neurosis about the Bill. Of course, the Commission is a responsible body that will act responsibly and it will have powers not dissimilar in nature or principal from those now possessed by the Monopolies Commission.
The Price Commission will be bound by the criteria set out in Clause 2, which I hope we shall be discussing shortly. Those criteria charge the Commission to act in a manner consistent with the making of adequate profits by efficient suppliers of goods and services. The criteria charge the Commission to pay regard to the need to recover costs incurred in the efficient supply of goods and services, to provide for a return on capital employed, and to ensure that profits are sufficient, taking one year with another, considering the risks involved. Once we are freed from arithmetical controls the Commission will be able to start taking account of risk taking.
I hear the hon. Member for Gloucester mumbling about current cost accounting, but one reads in the criteria about the need to provide enough money for the replacement of assets, and so on. In looking through the criteria—which will be binding on the Commission and the Secretary of State—one wonders who will be worrying. The only people who will be worrying will be those who are inefficient, those who are monopolists, and those trading in areas in which competition does not or cannot work.
What the hon. Member for Gloucester and the Opposition are trying to achieve through the amendment would be inefficient and monopolistic in those areas where competition does not work sufficiently. The hon. Lady said that the amendment would strike a blow for those


who want to remove the shackles of price control. I do not believe that those shackles should be removed, either temporarily or permanently. Those shackles and a degree of investigation should exist on a permanent basis.

Mr. Parkinson: One of the most worrying features of the speech that the Minister has just made is that he has an obvious and total lack of knowledge about the real world of business and industry. He appears to think that one can freeze the prices of major companies and yet not affect small businesses at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) pointed out to the Minister that a large number of small businesses are suppliers of large companies and that it is unlikely that if the Government froze the prices of large companies those companies would be prepared to accept higher prices from their small suppliers. The minister waved that aside because he patently did not understand it.
In showing his ignorance, the Minister gave me more cause for alarm than at almost any other time in the debate. It is frightening that we have a Minister who does not understand that small businesses can be affected by a price freeze for the large companies and that such a Minister should have a major influence at the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection.
Small businesses will be affected by the legislation in several ways. I have already mentioned the overspill effect. Large companies that have had their prices frozen will inevitably refuse to accept higher prices from their suppliers. There will be Clause 5 investigations, and there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that small businesses will not be investigated. Clause 5 is specifically intended to make sure that non-pre-notification companies can be investigated. Under Clause 10 there can be sectoral investigations that would certainly affect small companies. I hope that the Minister, having listened to the debate, will go back and start to look at the ways in which small companies will be affected by the Bill instead of blandly reassuring the House that he does not understand what he is talking about.
A welcome intervention was made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston

(Mr. Loyden). We like to hear the other point of view sometimes and Government Back Benchers appear to be more in touch with the real world than those who speak for them. The hon. Member for Garston said that it was scandalous that prices were now going up faster than before, that that could not be right and that we must have this mechanism because it is bound to help.
The Secretary of State has given an answer that was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) during an earlier debate on the Bill. The Secretary of State gave an interview to Mr. Gordon Leak, and this was the report of part of that interview. I quote:
Mr. Leak asked the Secretary of State:
'Would the price of any product be lower today if these controls had been introduced three years ago?'
The Secretary of State answered,
'Some prices certainly would. But not overall'."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1358.]
In other words, if the Minister had had these powers during the last three years, by his own admission there would have been no change of any real consequence in the level of prices. It is to that point that the Opposition object. We do not object because we want to see prices rocketing through the roof so that we can then say "Is not that a good thing?" We object to taking part in something that is purely a way of deluding the British public. We are not prepared to be party to misleading the public into believing that the Government are in control and capable of influencing events, because they are not.
We do not see the Bill as a means of affecting prices in any way. The Secretary of State has admitted that it will not do so. The Bill will damage confidence, produce higher unemployment than is necessary, and destroy investment. It will do nothing to deal with the problem of prices, and it will produce other equally important problems.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am sorry to interrupt the flow of rhetoric and logic, but the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) has said that the Opposition object to deluding the public through the Bill. If that is so, I must point out that the amendment that the Opposition have


moved makes it clear that they are prepared to delude the country for three years but that they would object if that went on indefinitely.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not know why the Secretary of State that the Bill represents ing worthwhile interventions, spends so much of his time sniping in a misleading way at my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). Unless he can say something more worth while he should stay in his seat. At least, while he is sitting there he is not doing any positive harm, and we should be grateful for that.
We have been repeatedly told by the Secretary of State that the Bil represents a new approach to price control. He has told us that we must stop thinking about the way in which the old price controls operated and that we are entering new and unchartered territory. We have been told today that we must not get involved in dealing with the nitty-gritty of specific points, that the Commission will operate the broad criteria agreed by Parliament and that it should be allowed to get on with the job. Whatever the Minister has said, we are entering a new phase. If the Price Commission is to operate with new powers, it will be a different sort of Commission from the one of which we have had experience. I am sure that the Minister would accept that.
We were at a terrible disadvantage in Committee because, as the Minister has admitted the criteria are extremely vague and general. We did not know what the profits safeguards would be and the sort of people who would be operating the Price Commission. It was therefore difficult to examine the Bill in the way we should have liked, because we did not know the key features that we needed to know in order to pass judgment on it.
We did not know what phase 3 would be, and we still do not know, though we are beginning to get a slightly better idea. We argued in Committee that industry might be prepared to accept the Price Commission and the new powers—but only if they were part of a deal that included wages control. I do not know where the Minister gets the idea that he can speak for industry. Time and again he has said that industry feels this or that, but a considerable number of indus-

trialists to whom I have spoken say that a prices policy without a pay policy would be an unmitigated disaster. Every industrialist to whom my hon. Friends and I have spoken has said that without wage control and an acceptable level of wage settlements he would not be prepared to accept the measures in the Bill.

Mr. Adley: I was invited recently to meet a number of brewers, who expressed to me their concern that the powers being taken in the Bill could result in their deferring £250 million of investment in new plant, which would mean very many new jobs being lost.

Mr. Parkinson: I have not been talking to the brewers, but I have been talking to a number of other people in a wide variety of industries and their reaction has been similar. We argued in Committee the dangers of a tight prices policy without an incomes policy and we pointed out that industry would not accept that situation because, in industry's opinion, it would be a recipe for increased unemployment and reduced investment.
Since the Committee stage, one or two things that we did not know have become clear. For example, we now know who will be the new chairman and the three deputy-chairmen of the Commission. Many of us have found it difficult to tie up some of the Secretary of State's recent pronouncements on this subject. He has been reassuring us that the new Commission will not be as busy or active as the old one. On Second Reading we were told that there would be about 40 investigations a year. I do not know how many thousands of applications the Commission has to vet and approve at present, but it must be a considerable number. When the Secretary of State was explaining why he was paying the new chairman, a retiring merchant banker, an increased salary, and why the chairman needs three highly-paid deputies, the right hon. Gentleman said that they would be so much busier and would have to do so much more than Sir Arthur Cockfield.
Many of us welcome the Minister of State's belated attempt to pay a compliment to Sir Arthur, because the Government have given the impression that the new people will do a much bigger job and earn much bigger salaries than Sir Arthur. I hope that the Secretary of State will take an opportunity to clear up that


possible misunderstanding and make clear that Sir Arthur has done a first-class job. The idea that the new man is better qualified and deserves more money, even though he will be doing less work, is unfair to Sir Arthur.
We now know who the four highly-paid new officials will be and we know about the new safeguards. We also know that these safeguards will be regarded by industry as totally unsatisfactory and certainly much less satisfactory than the existing safeguards. We also know of the continuing lack of progress on a pay policy.
I listened last week to a rather arrogant speech by Mr. David Basnett, who said that he had been present at a meeting at which the most important political decision of the year had been taken. That decision was taken not by this House but by the TUC Economic Committee. It was a rather arrogant claim to make while a guest of the Mother of Parliaments. That decision will not ensure an agreed level of wage increases. It will ensure only that trade unions will not seek pay increases—and the TUC will make sure that they do not—less than 12 months after the last pay increase. We were left with the clear impression that this was about as much as we could expect in phase 3.
8.15 p.m.
So we know that it is unlikely that in phase 3 industry will get anything that could be called a pay policy or that we shall get a norm that would be acceptable to industry. We are now creating alongside a virtually non-existent pay policy a permanent and strong mechanism for controlling prices. We are creating precisely the situation that industry believes will produce a lack of investment and increased unemployment. We are creating machinery that will damage industrial confidence and will do nothing to help the housewife or the consumer by controlling prices. We are creating a permanent intervention mechanism on the prices front while wages control is collapsing.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who argued that a strong prices policy without an incomes policy would be a disaster.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw any

suggestion that I made any comment about one policy being a disaster without the other.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. He said that a permanent incomes and prices policy was a feature of Liberal Party policy. Does not the Liberal Party think that, if we have one part of that policy but not the other part, that is a dangerous combination?

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman is reading into my remarks something that was not there.

Mr. Parkinson: The Liberals are introducing a new scale into this concept of opacity. I do not understand a great deal of what they stand for, and there are-times when I do not think they understand either.
The Minister of State argued in Committee that one of our problems was that pay policy had always been more effective than prices policy. He said that this was evidence that prices policy had not worked as well as pay policy and that the pay policies had always been forced more rigidly than prices policies. The truth is that there are many elements in prices that neither this nor any other Government could control, and it is inevitable that pay policy will always work better than prices policy if one judges prices policy on whether it is able to keep down prices as much as wages policy can keep down wages. However, the Government are not in control of many of the elements that produce increases in prices, and it is no argument for tightening price control to say that it has not worked as well as has wages control. It never can and never will, and any attempt to tighten price control will damage industrial confidence and cause more problems.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley made a typically engaging and muddled speech. He said that the Liberals wanted to see the powers in the Bill merged with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and that his party would support the Bill. That is because the hon. Gentleman thinks that this would be a step in the policy that his party will produce. Therefore, the Bill must not have a date fixed to it as is sought by the amendment. The Bill must not have a year to


run, plus, possibly, two more years if Parliament approves. We see the amendment as in no way preventing the Liberal Party from achieving its objectives. There is no possibility of producing the body that the hon. Gentleman wants without further legislation. If we have this legislation continuing automatically with no time limit upon it, it postpones the date when we can obtain the instrument that the hon. Gentleman wants. This legislation in no way brings it forward.
If this policy had to be reviewed next year, the Liberals could argue with the Government for the creation of a new body. However, the Government do not need their approval. The Government can continue with the present arrangements and the Liberals, by not supporting us, will be postponing the objective that they seek.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The facts are contrary to the scenario that the hon. Gentleman is imagining. If he thinks for one moment that the Liberals will wait for one year before continuing persistently to urge on the Government the necessary alterations to the Fair Trading Act 1973 he is entirely mistaken. The pressure will be continuous.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making the mistake that is consistently made by the Liberal Party. He thinks that if he and his colleagues influence future policy they will influence the past. Once the Bill is on the statute book, what the Liberals think or do not think is of little consequence. The situation is precisely the same in a whole range of other areas. The Community Land Act is still functioning and land is being nationalised. The aircraft and shipbuilding industries are being nationalised. That is taking place by administrative action and the Government do not need Liberal approval.
If Parliament puts a time limit on this legislation and if the Government have to come back in a year's time to prove the case, the Liberals will have a chance of

Division No. 157]
AYES
[8.26 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Biggs-Davison, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Baker, Kenneth
Blaker, Peter


Alison, Michael
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Benyon, W.
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Awdry, Daniel
Biffen, John
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

making the progress that they seek. In supporting the amendment, they would in no way be undermining their prospects. If they support us, they will be ensuring that there is an opportunity for the Government to recognise their arguments and to produce a new instrument. If they do not support us, they will be denying themselves the opportunity that they so obviously want.

The new Price Commission will consist of a group of people of whom the House and the British public have no knowledge. We have never seen these people in action in their new guise. We do not know how they will use the powers that the Bill will give them. We know that the Bill and the criteria are extremely vague and that the way they are interpreted will be of the greatest importance. We know that the safeguards that will be built into the Bill are widely regarded by industry as totally inadequate. All those features point to the fact that Parliament must have a chance within a year to assess the performance of the new commission, to assess the way in which the legislation is operating and to consider whether industry or the Minister is right about how the safeguards will affect British industry.

We are arguing that the House should have a chance a year from now to review the working of this brand-new instrument and the activities of a group of people none of whom has ever remotely tried to operate anything like the Price Commission. We believe that our arguments are overwhelming. We are bitterly disappointed that the Liberals, because they are so totally in the pockets of the Government, are not prepared to support us in giving Parliament a chance in a year's time to review the workings of this new body. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote resoundingly in favour of the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 238, Noes 258.

Braine, Sir Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Brittan, Leon
Hicks, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Higgins, Terence L.
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brooke, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brotherton, Michael
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford) 
Rhodes James, R. 


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, John (Bromley) 
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Burden, F. A. 
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridsdale, Julian


Butler, Adam (Bosworth) 
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) 
Rifkind, Malcolm


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Churchill, W. S. 
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) 
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) 


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) 
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) 
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) 


Clark, William (Croydon S) 
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ross, William (Londonderry) 


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) 
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) 


Clegg, Walter
Kers'haw, Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) 


Cockcroft, John
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Tim


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) 
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) 
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) 


Costain, A. P. 
Lamont, Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham) 


Crawford, Douglas
Latham, Michael (Melton) 
Shepherd, Colin


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Crowder, F. P. 
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) 
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) 
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset) 
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Loverldge, John
Skeet, T. H. H. 


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick) 


Drayson, Burnaby
MacCormick, lain
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield) 


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Dunlop, John
McCusker, H
Spence, John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) 


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John
Sproat, lain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew James
Stamton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) 
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) 
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) 
Stanly, John


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) 
Stewart Rt Hon Donald


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) 
Madel, David
Stewart, lan (Hitchin) 


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) 
Stokes, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mates, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J. 


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, R (Croydor, NW) 


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) 


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) 
Maywell, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) 
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) 
Mills, Peter
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) 




Thompson, George


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) 
Townsend cyril D


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St) 
Moate, Roger
Trotter Neville


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. 
Molyneaux, James
van Straubenzee, W R


Gardiner, George (Relgate) 
Monro, Hector
Vauglian Dr Gerard


Gardiner, Edward (S Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham) 
Moore, John (Croydon C) 
Wakeham John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Walder, David (Clitheroe) 


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) 
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) 


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) 
Walters Dennis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David
Watt, Hamish


Gorst, John
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) 
Nelson, Anthony
Wells, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) 
Neubert, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Griffiths, Eldon
Onslow, Cranley
Wigley Dafydd


Grist, Ian
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) 


Grylls, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington) 
Winterton Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F. 
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) 
Parkinson, Cecil
Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton) 


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Younger, Hon George


Hannam, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) 
Price, David (Eastleigh) 
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Carol Mather. 


Hayhoe, Barney






NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bidwell, Sydney


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) 
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) 
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bates, Alf
Boardman, H. 


Armstrong, Ernest
Bean, R. E. 
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Ashley, Jack
Beith, A. J. 
Boolhroyd, Miss Betty


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) 


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) 
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) 
Bradley, Tom







Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Penhaligon, David


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, William (Rugby)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Radice, Giles


Campbell, Ian
Huckfield, Les
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carson, John
Hunter, Adam
Robinson, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Janner, Greville
Rooker, J. W.


Clemitson, Ivor
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rose, Paul B.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rowlands, Ted


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ryman, John


Concannon, J. D.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sedgemore, Brian


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Selby, Harry


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Short, Mrs Renée (Woly NE)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kinnock, Nell
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Lambie, David
Small, William


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)
Snape, Peter


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, John
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; slough)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dempsey, James
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Stoddart, David


Dormand, J. D.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loyden Eddie
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Brisol NW)


Ennals, David
Mackenzie Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MACKINTOSH, JOHN P.
Tierney, Sydney


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMilIan Tom (clasaow C)
Torney, Tom


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Tuck, Raphael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maqee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Forrester, John
MarshalI, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Ward, Michael


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkins, David


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Weetch Ken


Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Weitzman, David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John
Welibeloved, James


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Pollok)


George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitlock, William


Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Golding, John
Moonman, Eric
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Gould, Bryan
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Gourlay, Harry
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrlngton)


Graham, Ted
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John



Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Padley, Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pardoe, John
Mr. Frank R. White.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the next

amendment, I have been asked by Mr. Speaker to announce a small change in the grouping of the amendments. He has


decided that Government Amendment No. 24, at present standing on its own, may be discussed with Amendments Nos. 84 and 16 when they are reached.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, page 1, leave out lines 12 to 20 and insert—
'(2) The members of the Price Commission shall continue to be appointed as defined by section 1(2) of the Counter-Inflation Act, with the addition of a representative appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland.'
In moving this amendment the Scottish National Party has two end views in mind. First, it aims to prevent the exclusion of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the appointment of members to the Price Commission. Secondly, it wishes to ensure a Scottish voice on the Price Commission.
In terms of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his exclusion from these appointments, great concern has been expressed by representatives of food manufacturers, by the all-party Retail Group and by various consumer organisations throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. It is our contention that it is important that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have a role in these appointments, because he has a great deal of responsibility not only for food producers but for consumers. We do not accept that there is conflict between the housewife and the producer. But we are worried about the destruction of the link between the consumer and the producer which is implied in the clause.
As a member of the Standing Committee, I am aware that the Minister of State said that there would be a process of consultation between the two Departments, but that was only a vague promise. He gave no indication at any time of the way in which this mechanism would operate. We are trying to ensure that there will be such a mechanism of consultation, because we must guarantee that there is contact and real co-operation between the two Departments. This is increasingly important as we move into the international situation, bearing in mind the provisions of the Common Market and the common agricultural policy and its effect on prices in the United Kingdom.
We need look no further than at what is happening in the pig industry. In my own constituency of East Dunbartonshire, where I have only 25 farms, the local NFU has been particularly vociferous in pointing to the problems that they are confronted with in terms of the pig industry subsidy. What we are faced with is the ultimate shortage of home produce, and this is to the disadvantage not only the farmers concerned but of the consumer. We are faced with a great disaster in this industry.
In trying to ensure that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is represented in the making of the appointments, we recognise that it is much more sensible to be forewarned than to be forearmed and to have the considered opinion of those people in terms of the decisions which are taken which will affect the consumer. We consider that the amendment which we have tabled is the best way of achieving that.
There is no doubt that the Minister who will be replying to the debate will say, as was said during the Standing Committee, that the Government do not want to have as members of the Price Commission delegates of particular interested groups. What we are saying is that the people who would be appointed in this context would be people who would bring a great deal of knowledge, experience and understanding to the situation. This is vital both to the producer and to the consumer.
On the second part of the amendment, it will come as no surprise to the House that the SNP is asking for a particular Scottish representative to be appointed to the Price Commission. What may be surprising to the House is that we are at least giving the Scottish Office some credit for having the ability to make a sensible appointment. It could be that we give it extra powers before we abolish that office, because with independence there will be no need to have a Secretary of State for Scotland. We recognise, however, that the Scottish Office is the best way of ensuring that a particular Scottish viewpoint is heard in the Price Commission. We would therefore give it this right of appointment.
8.45 p.m.
It is important to have a particularly Scottish representation on the Price Commission because different laws affect the


consumer in Scotland. There is a different legal system in Scotland compared with that pertaining south of the border. We wish to ensure that those laws are taken into consideration when any legislation is enacted.
Different problems in Scotland affect prices—for example, the question of transportation and supplying sparsely populated areas with various consumer goods. I shall deal with those matters more fully on Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 when we reach them.
We believe that specific Scottish problems in agriculture must be taken into consideration. Three-quarters of our agriculture industry is concerned with livestock and livestock products. We need to ensure that producers have reasonable prices for home-produced goods.
We therefore recommend this amendment with a view to ensuring that both producers and consumers alike are protected and that the people of Scotland have the representation they so richly deserve.

Mr. Rhodes James: I rise to support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). As she emphasised, Clause 1(2) omits the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from the appointment to the Price Commission and virtually gives the entire process to the Secretary of State. Some of us who have rather strong views about the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will understand why the Secretary of State had this change in mind.
Those of us who are interested in the maintenance of the principle involved here support the point made by the hon. Lady about the Secretary of State for Scotland. Behind my support for the amendment lies my concern, which I tried to express in Committee, about the considerable powers given to the Secretary of State for the appointment not only of the Commissioners, but of the Commission's staff. Subsection 3(b) emphasises that the appointment of the officers and servants of the Commission shall be done
with the consent of the Secretary of State".
Previously, it was done only after consultation.
In Committee, we received assurances that the Secretary of State would behave in an honourable and sensible manner and that only people of the highest worth and value, coming from a broad spectrum of the nation, would be appointed. We see no reason why, if those assurances are so important, they cannot be written into the Bill.
We do not understand the real significance of subsection (2). We are worried about it in the context not only of the omission of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but of the fact that the officers and servants of the Commission shall be appointed
with the consent of the Secretary of State".
That seems an ominous development. It gravely reflects the sources of information and advice about the appointment of the Commissioners and their staff. I support the amendment.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I intervene briefly. I believe that it is a mistake to omit reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from this clause. This goes against various other trends concerning consultation and participation between consumer and producer groups, which is steadily being increased.
Indeed, the National Farmers Union has already learned this lesson. It is encouraging participation with consumer groups as an ongoing dialogue. Therefore, given that consumers and producers have a common long-term interest in home production, it is important to ensure that the Price Commission contains the voices of producers, processors and retailers as well as straightforward consumers who will obviously be in the majority.
I believe that producers and consumers have a common interest in encouraging the promotion of the maximum use of home production at reasonable prices. The alternative will be heavy and costly imports from Common Market countries to make up the backlog which, sadly, is already appearing in various commodities in the United Kingdom. Sometimes one side or the other may lose sight of this proposition. It is therefore important to have a means of ensuring that the work of the Commission is not too lopsided.
As a member of the Scottish National Party I would be in favour of giving


more powers to the Secretary of State for Scotland within the United Kingdom, before finally abolishing him altogether, within a self-governing Scotland. But I hope that he would use those increased powers wisely.
A Scottish representative would ensure that our particular circumstances were taken into account—for example, the remoteness and sparcity of population, which in some areas affects living costs and prices to the detriment of local people. Most of all, I hope that a Scottish Secretary of State would ensure that producers, processors and retailers would be injected into the Commission to balance its approach and work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) said, the present pig crisis is a good example of the way in which lack of United Kingdom Government action in combination with the Common Market will produce a shortage of pig products in eight or nine months' time. A heavy price will be paid by both housewives and producers for this lack of foresight. I hope that the NFU and producer representatives will ensure that the voice of both producer and housewife is heard in the Commission. I support my hon. Friend, and I hope that the powers will be used wisely.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I intervene briefly on behalf of the food industry with which I am associated and in respect of which I declare an interest. The Under-Secretary of State knows the importance that the food industry attaches to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In Standing Committee we were saddened because we were unable to persuade the Government to accept the importance of maintaining joint sponsorship between the two Departments. We were even more saddened when we considered the powers of investigation that the Commission will have.
It is doubly necessary that the Commission should be appointed by Ministers acting jointly and that actions should be taken which Ministers, acting jointly, believe to be sensible. The enormous influence that food prices have, not only on indices but on the electorate, makes them a target for investigation. The Minister has said that about 40 investigations will involve food and related products. That is understandable, because they are of great concern to everyone.
It follows that the Commission should have a close link with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The reason for that is simple. The sponsoring Minister in this case is responsible not only for all the primary products that go into food processing but for the activities of that industry in dealing with imported food stuffs. It follows that the administration of the Commission should not run counter to the policy laid down by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has been worked out in consultation with that industry.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State to acknowledge that the other side of the sponsoring Ministry is vitally important, particularly to the food industry. It could be argued that the Department of Industry also has an important role to play.
We call for an assurance from the Government that the doubts expressed about the second Department retiring from the field will not lead us into a situation in which only the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection will be involved in the machinations of the Commission and the appointment of members in consultation with those sectors to be investigated.
I accept that there have been some criticisms of the relationship between the two Departments. It has been suggested by a number of people in industry that there are too many persons involved, particularly in the food industry, from each Department. However, I think that we have reached the point at which both Departments are working in a degree of harmony, the one with the other, and that joint sponsorship has been found to be effective in terms of the existing Price Commission and legislation. We wish to see that harmony preserved, and to that extent it is important that the amendment is carried. That is why we shall support it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) seeks to achieve two purposes—first, to add to the number of Ministers who are responsible for appointments to the Commision the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,


and, secondly, to add the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The argument was canvassed extensively in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State explained that since the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, which established the joint responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there have been a number of Government changes, and particularly that the responsibility for the whole field of price control and the Price Commission has passed to my right hon. Friend. In those circumstances it seems inappropriate to seek to extend the number of Ministers directly responsible for appointments to the Commission.
This does not betoken, as was implied by a number of those who have spoken in the debate, any view that there need be a necessary conflict of interest between producers and consumers. Were that so, of course the logic of the arguments of the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) might compel one to consult, or, indeed, to spread the responsibility for appointments very much more widely than to the Minister of Agriculture alone. However, we do not take the view that there is any necessary conflict here, and in these debates my right hon. Friend has sought to give reassurance. I believe that the whole Bill is testimony to his purpose that the interests of producers will be fully borne in mind in making these appointments. I should have thought that the appointments already announced would have done much to back up my right hon. Friend's assertions as concrete evidence of his intentions.
Perhaps I may say in passing that one is glad now to have Scottish National Party Members participating at all in the debates on the Bill. They were notably absent on Second Reading, and in Committee they voted for an Opposition amendment alleging that the Bill was not in the interests of the consumer.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclennan: No, I am in the middle of a sentence and I am addressing my remarks to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East for her particular

interest. I share the hon. Lady's view- and I share it as a Scot-that it is important that considerations affecting Scotland should be given full weight by the Price Commission where there are peculiarly Scottish considerations. Naturally, the Price Commission will seek to bring this about.
But the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has responsibility throughout the United Kingdom, and I do not see any need to proliferate responsibilities for appointments of that kind. There are other parts of the United Kingdom which have special problems and for which special consideration will no doubt have to be given.
9 p.m.
Perhaps it would be convenient to indicate that it is our intention to seek to ensure that regional interests are adequately represented in making these appointments. Indeed, partly with that purpose in mind, but also because of our recognition of the important judgments that will have to be made by Commissioners themselves, it is our intention to enlarge the maximum number of members of the Commission from that which prevails at present.

Mr. Welsh: With which English regions does the Minister equate the Scottish interests?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not equate any region with any other. I said that a number of different regions had special problems.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has defined the amendment as having two purposes, and I speak in support of both propositions implicit in the amendment. The first is that Scotland should specifically have a voice in the Commission and that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be party to that appointment. The second is that the traditional relationship with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be maintained as it has been for the past three years or so under the present Commission.
Hon. Members who were on the Committee were in the position of having to argue a case very much in the absence of knowledge of the precise appointments to the Commission. Although the Commission is an institution and will be


of more importance than any individual member of it—or, indeed, a collective contemporaneous number of members of it—none the less it helps us to understand the likely activity and motivation of the Commission to know the members of it.
We have as recently as yesterday afternoon had disclosed to us who the chairman and three deputy-chairmen are to be. Although they sound, on the face of it, very eminent men, it may be that closer familiarity with their qualifications and background may raise doubts. But certainly on the face of it they have a very considerable experience which one hopes will be of benefit to the Commission and to the country at large. We know in any case that, in the words of the Secretary of State on Second Reading, they will have
a positive commitment to the belief of selective Government intervention within the economy."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1258.]
Presumably they will believe in the benefit of selective Government intervention within the economy, but more than that we cannot know.
We are further told that the programme of the Commission will consist in an average year of 40 specific investigations and 10 sector investigations. The Commission will therefore have considerable discretion in undertaking investigations, so that the nature of the Commission is very important indeed.
I would not be one to argue that we could possibly hope to have a fully representative regional membership of the Commission. Although the Under-Secretary of State has indicated that he will take this into account, it is very unlikely to prove possible to have a geographical distribution of interests represented on the Commission. I accept, however, the point made by the Member for Dunbartonshire, East that Scotland, being so remote and so sparsely populated, has particular problems which ought to find an echo in the deliberations of the Commission.
The hon. Lady has put down other amendments drawing attention to the imbalance in employment opportunities and in the differential pricing which occurs as a result of distances between towns and villages in her part of the United Kingdom. I can and do, there-

fore, support the proposition that Scotland should be represented on the Commission. Indeed, despite the discourteous remarks made about participation of Scottish nationalists in the debate on the Bill, I for one can say that we benefited by having a representative from the Scottish nationalists on the Committee, and I see no reason why the Price Commission should be denied equal benefits of Scottish participation.
To turn to the question of the relationship of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the arrangements made for the Price Commission to be active, I refer to the case made by the Minister in Committee, when he once again rested his argument on the fact that the only reason for that relationship's existence was that it was part of the Counter-Inflation Act of 1973 when there was no Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. The Minister of State seems to rest his case rather a great deal on that historic fact. During the debate on the first amendment he indicated the permanence given to the Price Commission by that Act. If one assumes that everything in that Act is to continue, one first forgets the possibility of repeal and, secondly, one assumes that this form of inflation will always be with us. The Conservative Opposition do not accept that, and we would not like to see any action, however small and relatively insignificant, that gives credence to that belief.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has indicated, food is likely to be crucial to the whole question of selective Government intervention in pricing. The fact that this was open to arbitrary judgment, not just in the decisions reached but in the choice of investigations to make, causes us to be apprehensive about the working of this new body corporate. It is because the Government must be understood to be active in the public eye in seeking to reduce prices, or, at least, to contain price increases, that Opposition Members suspect that a number of references are likely to be in the food sector.
This is of most critical importance to everyone, particularly to those who find it hard to make ends meet, when inflation is so rapid and ravaging. Despite what the Under-Secretary said, there is a distinct possibility of conflict between the


producer and the consumer concerning food. It means that the Minister of Agriculture has to represent the long-term needs of the producer, who must have a sustainable working margin with which to ensure the food of the future.
In discussions recently the National Consumer Council recognised that, however much it might like to get together with the farmers in coming to a common policy on the Common Market, it is virtually impossible because the two appear to be diametrically opposed, although the consumer and the producer have a real common interest. But it is the nature of food production and the nature of consumption that are difficult to reconcile in public opinion.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, I can see a continuing value in the Minister of Agriculture being associated wtih the appointment of the members of the Prime Commission and in the general consultation processes that will be behind its work. There is no doubt at all, from past references that have been made, that the Secretary of State feels acutely sensitive on such subjects as the increase in potato prices, the staggering rise in the cost of coffee and tea, and brewers' prices. Only this evening reference was made to the fact that the brewers are at present very much in the public eye. The Minister of Agriculture can have a constructive, helpful, advisory role to play. To exclude him from these deliberations is to do so on the flimsiest of grounds and merely for administrative convenience.
Grounds other than those have been cited for thinking that the Minister of Agriculture should continue to play a role in this activity. I should like to see him doing so, and I therefore give my support to the amendment.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I was amazed by the comment made by the Minister in response to this debate. It seems that he did not take cognisance of the arguments in favour of the amendment. The amendment seeks to appoint to the Price Commission a representative who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I cannot see any reason why the Minister has failed to
We understand that the Prime Minister recently addressed members of the Labour accept that proposition.
Party and told them that devolution was one of the important parts of the Government's programme, yet here we have a situation in which the Minister obviously is trying to perpetuate a form of administrative centralism.
The Labour Government have spoken in favour of devolution and a form of Scottish Assembly in order to make sure that certain powers are sent back to the Scottish people to look after, yet the Bill contains the proposal that the Price Commission should not necessarily have any representative whatsoever from Scotland. That attitude is not acceptable, and it is high time the Minister reviewed his attitude.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member's strictures on me and my attitude would carry much greater weight if he had been present when I made my remarks.

Mr. Wilson: Having heard about the remarks of the Minister I am glad that I was not here, because they were not worth listening to. He did not address himself to the proposition in the amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) will return to that point.
In Scotland the Secretary of State at present has responsibility for agriculture and fisheries. He also has a lot of political responsibility, if not administrative responsibility, for people's complaints about increased prices in Scotland. Apart from that, it is essential that there should be a representative from Scotland on the Commission. We live in a time of high inflation, and in my constituency people are complaining day in and day out about how little they can buy in the shops with their money. Prices are a main consideration. Therefore, they will not understand why no Scottish representative is likely to be appointed to the Price Commission.
The Minister may well say that it is quite likely that a representative on the Commission will take care of what he calls the peculiar interests of Scotland. I think that that is rather condescending language, and somewhat surprising coming from a Scottish Member. Anyway, I am not sure that this will occur. If there is a Scottish representative, who will choose him? Will it be a principal from the Minister's Department, or will it be the Minister for Agriculture in


England? What we will not have is someone chosen by the Minister responsible in Scotland—the Secretary of State.
I cannot see why anyone on the Labour side who voted for devolution should now say that under no circumstances will a Scot be chosen from within Scotland to be the Scottish representative on the Price Commission. We shall need a much stronger argument from the Minister if we are to be persuaded that the House should not divide.
I would prefer to see a separate Scottish Price Commission, because many people in Scotland suffer from problems related to the cost of food. We have special problems of distribution, scarcity and transportation, and it is therefore desirable that we should have a Scottish Price Commission. At the very least we should have a representative appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. If the Minister wishes to hide in the Unionists' cubbyhole and pretend that Scotland does not exist he will find that his sojourn in Caithness and Sutherland will be very brief.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I did not have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee, and having heard the exchanges tonight I am glad that I did not. I get the impression from the Minister that he is one of the worst-tempered Under-Secretaries that I have heard speak from the Dispatch Box. If that bad temper had been displayed in Committee, the Committee would not have made good progress. The only possible explanation for the reasonable progress in Committee probably lay in the fact that the Minister was not on it. I am not sure about that, but if he had acted in Committee as he has in the House the proceedings would have been very slow indeed.
I am always quick to point out to SNP representatives when they are talking a lot of nonsense and acting against Scottish interests. Indeed, only this morning I made this clear when the SNP voted for an extension of the powers of Scottish direct labour departments. Furthermore, in Glasgow only a few days ago SNP representatives joined with wild Left-wingers to give a major contracting job to a direct labour department, even though a private firm had quoted a lower

price. I do not always agree with the SNP in principle, but on this occasion the SNP has advanced a strong case.

Mr. Alexander Wilson: It is the kiss of death.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman says that it is the kiss of death, but he should know that I do not adopt obsessively points put forward by the SNP. I believe that they should be considered on their merits. Certainly tonight they put forward a good case, to which the Minister gave an inadequate reply.
I understand that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire East (Mrs. Bain) was an assiduous member of the Committee and made a considerable contribution to its deliberations. It was unfortunate that her amendment was dealt with by the Minister in such a flippant and unhelpful way.
The first part of the amendment is very important, and the Minister should have met the SNP case with some argument—indeed any old argument—to show why the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be excluded from involvement in the choice of members of the Commission. However, the Minister put forward no case in explanation of the situation. He simply said that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection should handle the matter. The Minister must be aware that there is a strong body of opinion that feels that both Departments should be involved.
There appears to be a desire on the part of the Government—certainly some of their Ministers—to promote a positive hostility between consumers and producers. There have been several examples in ministerial speeches, and that concerns me. Some decisions by the EEC will be taken where the interests of producers and consumers do not appear to coincide, but the Minister must accept that it is to the benefit of the nation that the two sets of interests should work together as harmoniously as possible. It is not helped by actions and speeches by Ministers which appear to be designed to promote hostility between the two. Unless the Minister can produce a reasonable argument showing why the Minister of Agriculture should be excluded, he has no right to brush aside so lightly the arguments that have been advanced.
I wish to deal with the second part of the amendment, namely, the exclusion


of the Secretary of State for Scotland from any decision in appointing members of the Commission. This is intended to be a permanent Bill, and it would be a major error permanently to exclude the Secretary of State for Scotland from such deliberations.
There are a number of arguments to be advanced on this part of the amendment. Scotland is special in several respects. The Minister has drawn attention to problems in the rural, peripheral and island areas of Scotland which are exactly the same as problems in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am sure that if representatives from Cornwall were present—I am sorry that they are not here because they are usually assiduous in their attendance—they would be able to point to some of the problems in Cornwall involving transportation costs, lack of competition and the small turnover of shops—problems similar to those experienced in some of the rural and island areas of Scotland.
To that extent some of the problems relate to the whole of the United Kingdom and to various parts of the country that have special problems. Of course, there are some regional problems that apply to parts of Scotland, England and Wales. There are regional problems that apply throughout the United Kingdom. On the other hand, I hope that the Minister will accept that there are a number of items on which there is a national dimension. There are a number of specific examples that I shall give to show that it would be helpful and important for the Commission to have a Scottish representative to take account of the arguments that are not necessarily related to regional issues or particular national problems.
I am glad to see here the Under-secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone)—because he is likely to remember the many occasions when I put to the Government of the day, as a member of an earlier Opposition, the argument about the price of gas. It always struck me that there should be a United Kingdom price for gas, since there was a British Gas Board and it was a nationalised industry. However, that was not the case. There have always been substantial regional variations, and there were times, just a few years ago, when

gas prices in Scotland were as much as 14 per cent. above the average for England and Wales. That had nothing to do with regional affairs or remoteness.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will be pleased to note, on behalf of the Scottish National Party, that Scottish gas was on its own, and self-financing. That was why an economic price had to be charged that took into account the special costs of producing gas in Scotland. The difference has been greatly reduced by the introduction of North Sea gas.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: One of the reasons for the high price of gas in Scotland was that the gas boards in England were receiving gas from the North Sea and it took a very long time to bring that gas north. We had to pay for distribution facilities, and the same facilities will be used for North Sea gas when it is brought southwards from the basin off the Scottish coastline.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Dundee, East is wrong. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Wilson) could help us in this, because he knows more about the coal industry than almost anybody else in the House. The price of gas in Scotland was considerably higher long before there were any supplies of natural gas. When these supplies eventually came we had a major battle at about 3 a.m. and we were given an assurance that North Sea gas would be supplied at the same price throughout the United Kingdom. The fact that that is now happening shows that the differential has been reduced.
The reports of the British Gas Corporation show that one of the reasons why gas prices were higher was because of the price of Scottish coal. If there is one overwhelming argument against separation and the policies of the SNP it is the position of the Scottish coal industry. It would be put at risk if the United Kingdom broke up, and that would mean that the price of coal in Scotland would be substantially higher.
Such factors will have to be considered when decisions are made by the Price Commission. I hope that the Minister will accept that these arguments are fair and backed up by facts. If the Price Commission is to carry out its duty under


Clause 2 in considering detailed points about whether prices should go up and taking into account all the criteria, how can it do that for prices affecting Scotland unless it has a full knowledge of the circumstances affecting prices there?
It is probably not common knowledge that the level of domestic rates in Scotland are considerably higher than south of the border. This could be an important factor—although the rate support grant covers a larger share of the total Government expenditure. Rates in Scotland are higher than south of the border on both a per capita and household basis. There are also differences in the price of electricity. The price of electricity in Scotland is lower than the average price in England and Wales.
There are many other similar factors that I could mention, where there are not just regional variations but regional problems resulting in higher prices with the consequence of national differences between Scotland and England. The Price Commission would have to bear those differences in mind in considering whether price rises were justified and whether regional variations could be justified.
In addition, the Minister, who represents a rather remote area of Scotland, will know of the cost of transport and shipping, particularly in some of the islands, such as Orkney and Shetland. I was in Shetland three weeks ago and discovered that the shipping costs for a ton of hay were greater than the cost of buying the hay and taking it to Shetland. This is an important factor, which could not be fully considered unless there were a Scottish representative on the Commission.
There is little doubt that a Scot will be appointed to the Commission. Not to appoint a Scot would be a great mistake, and the only point that we have to consider is who should make such an appointment.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park—should listen. He has been making some alarming statements in the House that have been wholly inaccurate. These comments concern him, and when I see him laughing and sniggering while we are debating a serious problem affecting Scotland and Scottish

prices, the only thing that makes me doubt whether the Secretary of State for Scotland should appoint a Scottish representative on the Commission is that the hon. Member for Queen's Park might have some small part to play in the decision making. We accept that we are almost certain to have a Scot on the Commission, and in those circumstances the appointment should be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
By the nature of his job the Secretary of State for Scotland has more knowledge, experience and contacts with Scottish industry, people and business than does any other Minister. It is probably not generally known among hon. Members south of the border that he does not handle just one or two functions, as do other Ministers, but is responsible for a wide range of activities, including health, police, the fire service, roads and education. He is therefore in a unique position to know about Scottish problems and to have direct contact with the Scottish people.
Why is the Minister being so difficult about the amendment? Is it because of the bogy of devolution? We know that the Government are going through immense wrangles and a great deal of internal disagreement in an effort to find a solution to the almost impossible problems of the powers of taxation and the right number of Westminster MPs to be provided for in a new devolution Bill. The Prime Minister was inviting Labour Members this morning to support the Bill even before they had seen it.
Why has the Minister turned down what appears to be a reasonable suggestion, when we know that he is bound to appoint a Scot to the Commission? Is there some empire-building going on in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection? That is doubtful, because that Department is not amongst the greatest empire builders. Is it because in the next Session we shall have a Bill, the contents of which we do not know, which may affect these matters?
The Minister has an obligation to explain why he will not accept the amendment, which seems sensible and reasonable. Its only effect will be that the Scottish representative that we expect to be appointed to the Commission will be


appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
We are disappointed with the Minister's attitude and his inadequate reply. If the hon. Lady who moved the amendment wishes to press the amendment to a vote she can be sure on this occasion—though not always—of the full and undivided support of my party.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. Bain: It never ceases to amaze me that whenever a Member from my party addresses the House the immediate reaction from both the Government and the Opposition Benches is such that we find ourselves covering so wide a range of subjects that we feel that we have strayed totally out of order. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), in view of some of his remarks, should reread the article entitled "The Honest Truth" in the Sunday Post in 1968, when he stated that a Scottish Parliament would be a good thing. He should contrast that statement with the remarks he has addressed to the amendment.
I was appalled by the Minister's negative attitude to the amendment and the proposals contained within it. After all, we are asking for an extension of democracy. Although I am cynical about the concept of democracy that is adhered to by the Labour Party, I should have thought that in this case the Minister would not have much difficulty in supporting us. By the extension of democracy we are ensuring that those most directly involved in price control will have confidence in those who are involved in the system of appointment.
It is obvious from the reaction of various sections in society that there is no confidence in what is proposed in the Bill. Many sections of society wish to see us return to the definition outlined in the counter-inflation legislation, thereby including the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Surely nothing is being achieved by keeping that Ministry out of the system of appointment.
The Minister did nothing to convey to the House that there was any benefit from such exclusion. What would be the benefits? As he has added to our suspicions in that respect. I can see no

course open to us other than to force the issue to a Division. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry, because of the experience that it has had in dealing with a whole range of crises that have arisen in the food industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been helpful on many occasions in the past. Surely it is not logical to exclude it now.
The Minister said that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has responsibility throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I should not be surprised if Scottish consumers and producers have been saying "some responsibility!" bearing in mind the mess that we are in in Scotland. If we can have a statutory representative from the CBI and another from the TUC, why cannot we have a statutory Scot? I think it was purely by accident that I was the representative in Committee. I am not cynical enough to believe that I was the statutory Scot on that occasion. However, I was the Scottish voice in Committee when this piece of legislation was considered.
In dealing with the whole issue of price control in Scotland, it is essential to have someone who knows the Scottish situation. If, as the Minister says, the Government are considering increasing the number of those who are involved in the Price Commission, why not have a Scot? It is all very well having vague promises that one of them might be a Scot. T am sure the House will not be surprised when I say that the SNP Bench has had enough of promises from the Labour Government. We were told about getting back to work with Labour, but there are now 180,000-plus unemployed in Scotland. We were told that we would have a Scottish power-house, a Scottish Assembly to control all aspects of Scottish life——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Not under Amendment No. 2.

Mrs. Bain: I am referring, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the promise that the Minister made and making a comparison with the other promises that we have heard. I note that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has returned to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister has conveyed to him the deep concern which has been expressed that there will


not be Scottish representation at the highest level of the Price Commission. I have no hesitation in forcing this issue to a Division.

Division No. 158]
AYES
[9.34 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Philip
Mudd, David


Alison, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
Neave, Airey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth
Griffiths, Eldon
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bell, Ronald
Grist, Ian
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grylls, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam, John
Ralson, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rathbone, Tim


Body, Richard
Hastings, Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Bottomley, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Rees-Davies W. R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Heseltine, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boyson Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hicks, Robert
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhodes James R


Brittan, Leon
Hodgson, Robin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Holland, Philip
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Brooke, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Ridsdale, Julian


Brotherton, Michael
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rifkind, Malcolm


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Budgen, Nick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bulmer, Esmond
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Burden,F. A.
James, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Butler Adam (Bosworth)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Gristead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Carlisle, Mark
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Scott, Nicholas


Churchill, W. S.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shaw Giles (Pudsey)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
Kimball, Marcus
Shersby Michael


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Silvester Fred


Cockcroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims Roaer


Cooke Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Cope, John
Lamont, Norman
Skeet T. H. H.


Cormack, Patrick
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Crawford, Douglas
Lawson, Nigel
Speed Kelth


Crouch, David
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spence John


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer Michael (S Worcester)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lloyd, lan
Sproat, lain


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Loveridge, John
Stainton Keith


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook Ivor


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacCormlck, lain
Stanley John


Drayson, Burnaby
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart' Rt Hon Donald


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Nell
Stewart, Ian (Hltchln)


Dunlop, John
MacGregor, John
Stokes, John


Durant, Tony
MacKay, Andrew James
Stradllng Thomas J.


Dykes, Hugh
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Tapsell Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wllson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor Teddy (Cathcart)


Elliott, Sir William
Madel, David
Tebbit, Norman


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fairgrieve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Thompson George


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mayhew, Patrick
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Forman, Nigel
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mills, Peter
Wakeham, John


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (CIHheroe)


Fraser, Rt Hon H (Stafford &amp; St)
Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Montgomery, Fergus
Watt, Hamish


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wells, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 254.

Wigley, Dafydd
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Adon)
Mrs. Margaret Bain and


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George
Mr. Andrew Welsh. 




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) 
Mikardo, Ian


Allun, Frank
Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Freud, Clement
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N) 


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich S) 
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby) 


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) 
Molloy, William


Ashley, Jack
George, Bruce
Moonman, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Dr John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) 


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) 
Ginsburg, David
Moyle, Roland


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) 
Gould, Bryan
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) 
Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stanley


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Noble, Mike


Bean, R. E. 
Grant, George (Morpeth) 
O'Halloran, Michael


Beith, A. J. 
Grant, John (Islington C) 
Orbach, Maurice


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) 
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ovenden, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Padley, Walter


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hatton, Frank
Pardoe, John


Boardman, H. 
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Park, George


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hefler, Eric S. 
Pendry, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck) 
Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Bradley, Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Perry, Ernest


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Prescott, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H) 
Price, William (Rugby) 


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) 
Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan) 
Radice, Giles


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) 
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) 


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) 
Hucklield, Les
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P) 
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) 
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) 


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) 
Robinson, Geoffrey


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport) 
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cant, R. B. 
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, George (Chorley) 


Carmichael, Nell
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) 
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) 


Carson, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) 
Rooker, J. W. 


Carter, Ray
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) 
Rose, Paul B. 


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Greville
Ross, Slephen (Isle of Wight) 


Cartwright, John
Jeger, Mrs, Lena
Ross, Rt Hon W.(Kilmarnock) 


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) 
Rowlands, Ted


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Ryman, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West) 
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) 
Selby, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) 
Shaw, Arnold (llford South) 


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) 
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Concannon, J. D. 
Jones, Barry (East Flint) 
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) 


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Cowans, Harry
Kelley, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Cox, Thomas (Tooting) 
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Crowther Stan (Rotherham) 
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) 


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) 
Kinnock, Nell
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) 


Cryer, Bob




Cunningham, G. (Islington S) 
Lamble, David
Snape, Peter


Cunningham Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamborn, Harry
Spearing, Nigel


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W. 


Davies Bryan (Enfield N) 
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) 
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) 


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, John
Stott, Roger


Dean Joseph (Leeds West) 
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough) 
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. 


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Swain, Thomas


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) 


Dormand, J. D. 
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) 


Douglas-Mann Bruce
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) 
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) 


Duffy, A. E. P. 
McCartney, Hugh
Thomas, Ron (Brisol NW) 


Dunnett Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thome, Stan (Preston South) 


Eadie, Alex
McElhone, Frank
Tierney, Sydney


Edge, Geoff
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun) 
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Ennals, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) 
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. 


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) 
Madden, Max
Walnwrighi, Edwin (Dearne V) 


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) 
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V) 


Ewing, Harry (Stirling) 
Mallalieu, J. P. W. 
Walker, Harold (Doncaster) 


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. 
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Klngswood) 


Fitch, Alan (Wigan) 
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) 
Ward, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) 
Watkins, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) 
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Foot. Rt Hon Michael
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) 
Mendelson, John
White, Frank R. (Bury) 







White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Whitlock, William
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woodall, Alec
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wool, Robert
Mr. James Hamilton and


Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

COMMISSION'S DUTY TO HAVE REGARD TO SPECIFIED MATTERS

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 27, leave out 'the Commission consider them' and insert 'they are'.
We now move on to consider the first of the amendments to Clause 2, which concerns the criteria which have been set down for the working of the Commission and, in particular, its duty to have regard to certain specified matters.
The House will recall that the clause was not only the subject of extensive consultation but was, indeed, preceded by a period of consultation about the criteria listed within it. Therefore, it is obvious that the criteria are considered to be very important.
The first point that we wish to establish is that, where important criteria are listed in a Bill, they should be seen to be important and their importance should be safeguarded. In Committee, when we raised the question of the discretionary power vested in the Commission to have regard or disregard to certain criteria, the Government were unwilling to accept that distinction.
I understand that the Secretary of State is concerned to establish a Commission that will carry through its obligations with the maximum degree of sensitivity, consultation and, we hope, fairness. The Committee stage was somewhat bedevilled by the number of times that the Government seemed to take shelter behind the formation of the Commission and, in particular, the nominations that they would eventually approve for the chairman and other members, so that they would be able to demonstrate to industry that the Commission was fairly staffed.
We have had the first announcement about the composition of the Commission. We may draw our own conclusions about that. However, we are still far from satisfied that the Commission, so appointed, should be allowed this dis-

cretion when it comes to determining which of the criteria listed in the clause are relevant. The purpose of the amendment to take that discretionary power from the Commission and to ensure that that it considers the criteria which are relevant. It should not be allowed to say "We do not believe that that criterion should be considered in this particular investigation, because we do not consider it to be relevant."
I should like to explain the importance of these criteria. We understand that they will guide the Commission in deciding whether a price application should result in an investigation. Therefore, it is important that the Commission should have regard to the criteria and that those making the price application should understand by which criteria they are to be judged.
On this aspect of the proposal we found ourselves in great difficulty in Committee. The Government were clearly unwilling to deal with the criteria in a full and open manner. They wished to reserve to the Commission the right to decide that certain of the matters listed in the clause should be regarded as relevant and that others should not. We think that it is important for the Commission to be seen to work fully and fairly within the criteria. Therefore, it should not be given the power to decide whether certain of the criteria should be disregarded.
I should like to offer a further explanation of the importance of this matter. In our view a company, having made a price application, should have the right to know under which of the criteria it is to be investigated. It may be that the criteria should be published at the time of notification of the price application so that the investigation, when it takes place, will be seen to be dictated by certain relevant criteria.
If we allow the Commission to have this discretionary power, industry and, indeed, the applying company would not know under what heads of Clause 2 the application was being investigated. That could have serious repercussions. For example, a company might prepare a defence on its interpretation of the


criteria which the Commission considered only to find that those were criteria which the Commission had elected to disregard because it did not consider them relevant.
To put the matter another way, a company, in making its price application and price planning, might regard the need to earn a real return by way of profit as its leading criterion, but the Price Commission in its wisdom might decide that it did not wish to apply that criterion in that case. I admit that that is unlikely, but the Bill allows that situation to arise.
If the Secretary of State really seeks to stress that Clause 2 provides important safeguards to give industry confidence in the workings of the Commission, the first safeguard he must apply is that industry is treated in an open-handed and fair manner and that it knows precisely where the criteria will lead.
If the Commission is allowed to operate discretion when dealing with these safeguards, they will not be the safeguards that the Secretary of State in consultation told industry they would be. As long as there is a discretionary power, doubt will remain about the effectiveness of the criteria.
I come to the way in which the Commission is to operate. It is of the utmost importance that the Commission is seen to operate according to a certain pattern, just as any investigatory body has to establish a series of yardsticks and case law to guide its activities. The pattern gradually becomes clear, and those affected can plan on that basis. If it is seen that the Commission is operating the criteria without the discretionary power, industry will know the yardsticks by which it should measure its likelihood of attracting a price investigation. Industry can therefore take into account all the matters listed in the Bill, knowing that the Commission will not disregard the criteria that are relevant to the price application. This will have a substantial effect on the confidence that is built up between those who have

Division No. 159]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Allaun, Frank
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bidwell, Sydney


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, All
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Bean, R. E.
Boardman, H.


Ashton, Joe
Belth, A. J.
Booth, Rt Hon Albert

to carry out both parts of the bargain—the Commission seeking to operate clearly and fairly, and industry understanding the way in which the Commission operates.

In recent weeks we have been led to believe that the safeguards in the Bill are not what the Secretary of State told us they would be in Committee. There is real disagreement about the safeguards, and we shall discuss them further when we reach Clause 9.

The Minister will be aware of the deep anxiety that the Government have caused. I put it to him that the Commission's duty to have regard to specified matters under Clause 2 is even more important. We add another element of uncertainty if we allow the Bill to go through with doubt about the weight that will be given to the criteria.

In Committee the Government were unable to accept a similar amendment. It resulted in a tied vote. What has happened since has increased our anxiety about the need for the amendment.

If Clause 2 is to be effective, the Commission must be seen to act fairly. It should not be allowed to take a discretionary view about which criteria are adequate and which are relevant. From that point of view we should certainly welcome an admission by the Government that they accept that the amendment should be put forward, because, as far as we can see, no real concession has been made to the substantial points that we put to the Government in Committee.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,

That Government Business may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Tinn.]

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 238.

Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hooley, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Bradley Tom
Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David


Bray Dr Jeremy
Horam, John
Perry, Ernest


Brown Hugh D. (Provan)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Prescott, John


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Radice, Giles


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Huckfield, Les
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Callaghan Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cant R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carmichael Nell
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Carson, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carter Ray
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cartwright, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rooker, J. W.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rose, Paul B.


Clemitson, Ivor
John, Brynmor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rowlands, Ted


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ryman, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Sandeison, Neville


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sedgemore, Brian


Conian, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Selby, Harry


Corbett, Robin
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Cowans, Harry
Kelley, Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Cronin, John
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lamborn, Harry
Small, William


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davidson, Arthur
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lee, John
Spearing, Nigel


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lever, Rt Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulnam)


Doig, Peter
Lomes, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Dormand, J. D.
Lomes, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Eadie, Alex
McDonald Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Boiton W)


Edge, Geoff
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarauhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jermy (N Devon)


Evans, Fred (Carphilly)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tlerney, Sydney


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fletcher Ted (Darlington)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Doncaster)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Watkins, Ken


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mendelson, John
Weetch, Ken


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Freeson, Reginald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Freud, Clement
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
White, James (Pollok)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
whitlock, William


George' Bruce
Molloy, William
Wigley, Dafydd


Gilbert, Dr John
Moonman, Eric
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Golding, John
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Gould, Bryan
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Gourlay, Harry
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Grocott, Bruce
O'Halloran, Michael
Woodall, Alec


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ovenden, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Padley, Walter



Hatton, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Pardoe, John
Mr. Ted Graham and


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George
Mr. Joseph Harper.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neubert, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Gray, Hamish
Newton, Tony


Alison, Michael
Griffiths, Eldon
Onslow, Cranley


Amery, Rt Hon Juilan
Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Parkinson, Cecil


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Baker, Kenneth
Hampson, Dr Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Rathbone, Tim


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Blaker, Peter
Henderson, Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Body, Richard
Heseltine, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, R.


Bottomley, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hodgson, Robin
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Holland, Philip
Ridsdale, Julian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brotherton, Michael
Hurd, Douglas
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Buck, Antony
James, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Budgen, Nick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Scott, Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Burden, F. A.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shepherd, Colin


Carlisle, Mark
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Fred


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sims, Roger


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Lamont, Norman
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cockcroft, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Speed, Keith


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Cormack, Patrick
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Costain, A. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, lain


Crawford, Douglas
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David




Crowder, F.P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lloyd, lan
Stanley, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Loveridge, John
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Drayson, Burnaby
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stokes, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCormick, Iain
Strading Thomas, J.


Dunlop, John
McCrindle, Robert
Tapsell, Peter


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay Andrew James
Tebbit, Norman




Temple-Morris, Peter


Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Emery Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thompson, George


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Trotter Neville


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Viggers Peter


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Wakeham, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Forman, Nigel
Mayhew, Patrick
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Fox, Marcus
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Watt, Hamish


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mills, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wells, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Welsh, Andrew


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Wiggin, Jerry


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)



Goodlad, Alastair
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gorst, John
Neave, Airey
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Nelson, Anthony
Sir George Young.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL

Bill (as amended in the Standing Committee), further considered.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: When we divided, I was trying to summarise the reasons why we feel that this is an important amendment which should be pressed. It is inconsistent with the importance given to the criteria and the steps taken to consult industry about the matter that the discretionary power should remain. It is very important that the Commission should be seen to work fairly and openly and to establish a case law about its operations which industry can understand.
Unless industry has the assurance that the criteria are fully understood because of their relevance and that the Commis-

sion does not decide on a whim to ignore them, it will not be able to prepare a full defence of prices being investigated, knowing full well the criteria to be applied.
The Secretary of State thought that there were adequate provisions in the Bill, for safeguards for the party making the application, and after later discussions with the Price Commission the Minister felt that there were sufficient safeguards not to make it necessary to accept the amendments. We would like to hear what the Government have to say about this now, bearing in mind the substantial anxiety being expressed about safeguards concerning profitability in Clause 9. Industry is relying on the way in which the Commission works, and these criteria will become an important aspect of the Bill. That is why we want them spelt out fairly and the discretionary power removed.

Mr. Terry Walker: The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) mentioned criteria, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to this point when he replies. I think that the definition of the criteria in Clause 2 is very important. That was dealt with in Committee. I hope that the Minister will go a little further on it when he speaks tonight.
It is a very relevant point to make that if the Commission has the ability to delay price increases based on legitimate costs, particularly of imported basic raw materials, this would be a real worry. In all this, the Commission must be seen to act fairly on price investigations.
In my constituency I have had considerable representations from the Cad-bury Group, which is a very large employer, and, of course, the jobs there are very important to my area. The representations have come from both management and trade unions at the Somer-dale factory of Cadbury-Schweppes. They are very concerned about certain provisions contained in Schedule 2 to the Bill because the criteria are not quite clear to them. It is necessary to reiterate their concern in respect of some principles of price control which do not appear to be wholly clear. Particularly in the food industry, imported commodity prices fluctuate a great deal and this contributes a significant element to the cost. It was the subject recently of very dramatic prices increases, which are totally beyond the control of manufacturers.
I am told that in the past year spot cocoa and raw cocoa prices have risen three times. The company concerned believes that if price rises are not allowed there will be a reduction in profitability. This is acknowledged by all, but this could lead to a rationalisation and a reduction in investment in the plant. But most of all—and this is the main concern of management and the work force—it could lead to implications in respect of job security and employment prospects in the area.
I wish to address myself to the job situation, because if prices are not allowed to rise there may be long delays, leading to rationalisation within plants and perhaps to the diminution of job prospects. The company has a long record of good

industrial relations in my constituency over a long period. Both the company and the trade unions are justifiably proud of this fact, but they believe that job prospects will be damaged if there are delays. I hope that the Minister can go a little further when he replies and will give a clearer definition of the criteria, which I am sure would be helpful to my constituents and to us all.

Mr. Viggers: One is sometimes reticent about speaking in the House when one was not a member of the Committee which has considered a Bill, but perhaps an outsider sometimes sees most of the game. Coming fresh to this amendment, as a lawyer, I believe that the Government should accept it. There is no point in pursuing narrow party politics. I do not regard the amendment as particularly Conservative, Labour or Socialist. There is no point involving any major difference between the parties. It is simply a matter of drafting.
The parliamentary draftsman has chosen to word the Bill in one way and he wants it worded in no other way. As often happens in the House, it becomes a matter of the defence of a Minister's virility to make sure that a Bill is not amended. If, however, the Government were to accept the amendment, it would reinforce the position of Parliament. It would mean that Parliament would specify relevant matters instead of leaving the job to the Price Commission.
I hope that the Government will not be led by the nose and will allow Parliament to specify what it thinks is relevant and will not let the Commission do the job for us. It is foolish for Parliament to prepare a shopping list which the Commission may or may not accept as relevant. It is surely for Parliament to spell out the things that ought to be relevant.
Let us look at this shopping list and examine the matters which the Commission can or cannot accept as being relevant. If the Government are reluctant to accept the amendment, we should pursue our argument reductio ad absurdum and ask what will happen if the amendment is not accepted and if the Commission is free to say that certain matters are not relevant.
The amendment proposes that certain matters should be accepted so far as they are relevant. They include
the need to recover costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services and in maintaining the value of the relevant businesses".
Does anybody suggest that this is not related to prices? Of course it is. Nobody can say that the Commission in its objective wisdom shall deem that this is not relevant.
In paragraph (b) we see
the desirability of encouraging reductions in costs by improvements in the use of resources 
and so on. Does anybody suggest that the Commission can take a subjective view and say that that is not relevant?
In paragraph (c) we see
the need to earn, from selling goods and providing services in the United Kingdom, profits which provide a return on the capital employed in producing the profits which is sufficient, taking one year with another—

(i) to defray the cost of the capital (including compensation for the risk involved in producing the profits), and
(ii) to provide money for, and to encourage the promotion of, innovations and technical improvements in and the expansion of the enterprises which consist of or include the relevant businesses".

Can anybody say that that could not be regarded as relevant or that the Commission should be able to disregard that factor?
Another of the criteria is
(d) the need to take account of changes in prices in determining the value of assets".
Is that such a narrow point and drawn so technically that the Commission should be able to decide to disregard it? The next criterion is
(e) the desirability of maintaining the quality of goods and services and satisfying the demands of users of goods and services ".
The only criticism I make of (e) is that it is drawn so widely that it is meaningless, but to go further and say that the Commission should be entitled to disregard it and that it is not relevant is also meaningless.
The list continues:
(f) the need to safeguard the interests of users of goods and services by promoting competition between suppliers or, where competition must be restricted or cannot be promoted, by restricting prices and charges".
That is one of the things that the Commission is meant to do, but it is to be

allowed to take account of that only if it considers it relevant.
The next of the criteria is
(g) the desirability of establishing and maintaining a balance between the supply of goods and services and the demand for them".
Again, it is so broadly drawn that nobody in his right mind could possibly say that it should be disregarded. Yet the Commission has the right of a subjective judgment to disregard that factor if it so wishes.
The last on the list is
(h) the need to avoid detriment, from restraints on prices and charges, to the United Kingdom's balance of payments and the need to increase the share of United Kingdom enterprises in markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere".
Of course, anybody concerned with the distribution of goods and services must be aware of those things and should take account of them. To think that we are considering the possibility of allowing the Commission to take a subjective judgment as to whether that is relevant or not is simply cloud-cuckoo-land.
This is not a narrow political point. The Government would not lose anything—sleep, prestige or anything else—by accepting the amendment. It does not make sense for the Government to insist upon a substantive Bill and not to accept the amendment.

Mr. Tim Smith: I must first declare an interest because I speak in the capacity of a company secretary of an engineering group of companies who during the last two years has had to deal with the Price Commission. The group of companies, having elected not to be categorised in accordance with paragraph 84(a) of the existing code, is not a category 2 enterprise but is a category 3 enterprise in accordance with paragraph 84(b) or 84(c).
Nevertheless this has meant that, although we have not had to pre-notify prices, we have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the Commission. I must pay tribute to the fair way in which the Commission has dealt with my company and other companies which have, on a continuing basis, negotiated over pricing policies and profit margin controls.
My comment on the amendment is that the Bill should be seen to continue the


same element of fairness. If that is to be so, it is important that in all the circumstances and all cases the Price Commission should apply the same criteria to all companies that are the subject of investigation. The unfortunate thing about the clause as it is presently structured is that it gives the Commission discretion to decide in a subjective way what is relevant and what is not. The amendment would mean that the way that the matter was considered would be more objective.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gos-port (Mr. Viggers) has taken us through the various criteria. All of them are important and will be relevant in almost all circumstances. They should not be disregarded. The important point is not the theoretical intention of the Bill and the right or wrong wording, but the practical effect of the law and how the new Price Commission will work in practice. Those of us in industry who must deal with the Price Commission regard that as of high priority.
10.30 p.m.
In Committee, the Minister of State said that the judgment as to which criteria were relevant must be made by the Commission. No one on this side of the House is arguing about that, but the point is how subjective that judgment should be. The Minister also said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) that my hon. Friend could sustain his objections only if he could show that commissions of this nature had acted in a totally unreasonable way. No one is suggesting that this has happened. The Commission has acted in a very fair manner, and it is important that it should continue to do so.
The distinction that the amendment seeks to make is between a decision that no reasonable person could have made—that is the only way that the Commission could be challenged in court—and a decision that a reasonable person would have made. This is not a narrow point. It is an important distiction. It may seem like a lawyer's point, but it is very much more important than that.

Mr. Ron Thomas: If I were tempted to be kind to the Opposition, I would suggest that they are making heavy weather of three or four words. It can easily be argued that all that is being sought here is that, in the examination of

certain threatened price increases, certain yardsticks or criteria should be relevant on certain occasions but that on other occasions they will not be relevant. However, I do not feel like being kind to the Opposition. I suspect that they want a list such as the one in the Bill because it is so wide and woolly that any company accountant or secretary will be able to substantiate a case for a price increase being necessary.
The Opposition want to see the Price Commission going through every dot and comma on the list on every occasion, irrespective of the product involved, the reasons for the price increase or the area or market situation of the firm. Presumably they want a right of appeal by lawyers if the Commission fails to examine one part of the list. The Opposition want a list as long as one's arm because they oppose any sort of price control. Why do they not admit it?
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) seems to think that prices are fixed in a free market in an auction in one of the Gloucestershire villages, but the world is not like that any more.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, but he is making it on the wrong amendment. Our amendment says simply that Parliament is laying down the criteria for the Commission and that the Commission should remember that it is set up by Parliament and should obey the rules laid down for it. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited. We are not undermining the Commission. We are saying that it should do what it is being set up to do.

Mr. Thomas: I understand what the Opposition are saying. Instead of the Commission being able to say in respect of a price increase that one or two of the criteria are relevant, they want it to have to say on every conceivable occasion that all the criteria are relevant. It is said that the Commission should go through them like a check list. If we delete
the Commission consider them relevant",
we are saying that the Commission is not given the right of judging relevance; we are saying that it must accept that in every case every matter is relevant. In my judgment, the real meaning behind that is that Opposition Members want to


drag out any Commission investigation. They want to be able to challenge the company lawyers, accountants and secretaries by saying "You did not look at this." The provisions are full of all sorts of value judgments.
Clause 2(2)(c) refers to the need to
defray the cost of the capital (including compensation for the risk involved in producing the profits)".
What exactly does that mean? I do not know. One of my amendments—it has not been selected—called for that to be deleted. It is nebulous. The Opposition want the longest possible list, filled with all sorts of vague judgments and woolly statements. I wish that they would be honest about their wish to prevent any price control. This is the position in which we find ourselves even after the Sandilands Report.
A considerable amount of judgment is involved. On every occasion, irrespective of the scale of the price increase or threatened price increase, the Commission must take every aspect into account. This is the method that the Opposition are using to try to make the Bill even less effective than it is now.

Mr. Neubert: Subsection (2) is perhaps the most remarkable feature of the Bill. It is a measure which has been introduced by a Labour Secretary of State and sponsored by a Labour Government. What is more, it is supported by the whole spectrum of Labour opinion in the House, from the far right represented on the Treasury Bench by the Undersecretary of State to the Tribune Group, which has made its contribution in the form of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas).
Subsection (2), to which the amendment draws attention, requires the Commission to pay regard to its detailed provisions in so far as they are relevant. It is such a veritable litany of capitalism that it is surprising that it is not recognised as such. Within the compass of this small series of clauses and subsections is all that those who believe in free enterprise would wish to see as safeguards for the Bill. The unfortunate part about the subsection is that it is not, as has been acknowledged, sufficiently specific and certain for business men and others engaged in commerce and trade to be sure.
Rightly and properly, and not unexpectedly, we are moving the amendment to make a subtle but significant change. It is not the change that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West believes it to be—namely, that all these considerations should be taken into account. Only those that are relevant should be taken into account.
For the moment, I concentrate on the importance of the matters to which the Commission should refer in coming to its decision. First, there is the need
to cover costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services".
That goes without saying. That is without question in any part of the House.
We come, however, to more remarkable features of this Labour Bill which has been supported with such enthusiasm by members of the Parliamentary Labour Party. There is the provision
to defray the cost of the capital equipment (including compensation for the risk involved in producing the profits)".
The hon. Gentleman did not understand what that meant. It was so alien to him that he could not understand it. It means something quite remarkable. It means that for the first time the Labour Government are prepared to put into print their belief that those who invest money in hazardous enterprises, who gamble with their capital and their shareholders' funds, should be compensated, and compensated above average, if they succeed in those enterprises.
That is the main element of free enterprise. It is the essence of risk-taking that the greater the risk taken, the greater the reward. What is so often forgotten by Labour Members is that if a great risk is taken and failure follows, the greater the loss and failure than if a smaller risk is taken. Therefore, there should be compensation. The free market allows for that.
Those in the bureaucratic, dogmatic world of the Labour Party see everything in strictly controlled terms. Although a person may risk a vast amount of money, he is allowed to secure only a minimum return on that risk.

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend is showing me the Bill in a new light. Are the Government proposing to have the Commission to facilitate speculation?

Mr. Neubert: I hope that that is the reason. The Bill does not appear in a flattering and encouraging light because it is drafted in legislative terms. It does not fire the blood. How could it be a clarion call to enterprise when it is drafted by Parliamentary draftsmen?
There are some remarkable provisions in the Bill. It recognises that the Commission, before coming to a decision, should take into account the need for companies to provide money for research, innovation, technical improvement and expansion. It even takes account of the ravages of inflation. It allows—this is remarkable in view of the present political scene—companies to make as their defence of apparently high profits the fact that in real terms they are not making profits at all. That is shown by the Bank of England bulletin. Were it not for the stock appreciation relief introduced by the Chancellor, many of the so-called profits would be losses and would be shown as such.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it allows a company to charge prices high enough to replace its assets, such as machinery, at replacement cost, so that the consumers pay for them? Does this mean that the private enterprise system and the market mechanism to which the hon. Gentleman refers have now gone?

Mr. Neubert: The consumers pay for part of the cost of the overheads of any product. The person taking the risk must recover his investment. Unless the consumer buys his product, he will not recover his investment. That is where the risk lies. In the price of any product there will be an element for research and development and future capital investment. Of course the consumer pays for it. That is a proper part of the price of a product.
Finally, I draw attention to another matter that is enshrined in this Labour Party Bill—the desirability of establishing a balance between supply and demand. I thought that the concept of supply and demand was foreign to the Labour Party and that its members did not undestand that in times of shortage prices are higher than in times of glut, and vice versa. Nevertheless, they obviously wish to commit their new-found belief in enterprise and capitalism to paper.
Naturally, the Opposition regard these criteria as of the highest importance. They have a philosophical significance that goes beyond this debate. That is why we are so concerned that the new Commission, the members of which are not yet known apart from the four announced yesterday, should take account of such criteria as are relevant. The Bill provides for the Commission to have discretion whether to consider the criteria relevant. Relevance is not a matter for scientific definition. Relevance is ultimately a matter of judgment. All of us think we know what is and what is not relevant. There are different views on the matter.
In Committee, the Minister frequently offered a safeguard to people in business if they were apprehensive about what would happen in the course of the Commission's wide-ranging and arbitrary activities. Business people are being asked to substitute for the devil they know a devil whose face they recognise but whose name they cannot quite remember. They do not welcome this uncertainty. It will hinder their forward planning and investment. They are being asked to contend with a vague set of general principles, of which they can have no confidence that the Commission will take account.
10.45 p.m.
The amendment would not ensure that all the criteria were always taken into account, but it would constrain the Commission against exercising its discretion unwisely because the company under investigation could have recourse to the courts. That was the ultimate safeguard offered by the Minister in Committee. It is better for the decision on relevance to be with the courts rather than the Commission. After all, if the Commission contended that it considered some criteria in good faith not to be relevant, that could hardly be challenged.
I choose an illustration with some provocation, that of television rental companies. The Minister of State regards that as the classic evidence of the success of the Government's policy. I regard it instead as the only evidence of how the Commission is likely to take into account the criteria in the Bill. The companies have invested over £1,000 million in television sets and the net profit margin challenged by the Commission's report was 16·5 per cent. for 1976, when the


year-on-year inflation rate began at 23·4 per cent, and ended at 15·1 per cent.
My hon. Friends will understand my apprehension that the Commission should regard that as excessive, given the level of investment and the rate of inflation. Nor did the companies breach the Price Code. I am apprehensive about how the Commission will work. It will be biased by being composed entirely of people who believe in the benefits of Government intervention in the economy. I want to help to secure business confidence by supporting the amendment.

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that the Opposition are making heavy weather of the amendment. He thought that the object was to allow companies to resort to a large number of criteria so as to escape price control. He provoked a response from the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who asserted more succinctly than anyone else that the Opposition's sole interest was to ensure that the Price Commission should take account of the criteria in the clause.
That is precisely provided for as the clause stands. Although the general safeguard for industry is summed up in Clause 2(1), which specifies what the Commission shall have regard to, the clause also provides that there are some matters to which the Commission shall also have regard in particular.
The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) said that the criteria were important, that they should be seen to be important, and that the Opposition wanted to underline their importance by moving the amendment. The Government accept that these are important considerations. That is why they are included among the matters to which the Commission has a duty to have regard. But behind the amendment is not so much, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West said, a general attempt to evade price control as an attempt to reverse the clock and to reintroduce by the back door a kind of Price Code.
Our whole purpose in bringing forward the Bill has been to tailor price control to the needs and demands of our economy, to ensure that the broad brush

criteria set out in the Price Code are not reinstated and to allow the Price Commission to exercise its judgment on which price increases are justifiable and which are not. In making these subjective determinations—I make no attempt to deny that they will be subjective—the Commission will have in mind and will take into account the considerations put forward by companies notifying proposed price increases.
The matters included in subsection (2) are the considerations which readily spring to mind as being those which companies would no doubt deem it important to have considered. But they are not, and we would not wish them to be, exclusive considerations. Companies may bring forward other considerations, and it will be proper for the Price Commission to consider such other considerations as companies may choose to advance.
The defect in the amendment is that it seeks to objectify these criteria in a way which I believe cannot be done. The result of passing the amendment would be that the Commission would none the less still be free to make its own assessment whether the criteria were applicable, because the amendment fails to specify who would judge the relevance of the criteria. Even accepting that the Opposition's objective was justifiable—in my view it is not, because it seeks to make the criteria more rigid and indeed code-like—I suggest that it fails on the wording of the amendment.
The main consideration for firms which are concerned about the criteria lies in subsection (1), which also provides that the Commission shall have regard to all the matters which seem to it to be relevant. The Government take the view that it is right to appoint men—and perhaps women—who are capable of bearing fully in mind whether a proposed price increase is justifiable on the basis of the appropriate considerations which may be put forward by firms or which may occur to the Commission.
The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) said that he would view with equanimity the prospect of the relevance or otherwise of criteria being tested in the courts. That would not provide industry with the certainty that the hon. Member's Front Bench advocates.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does the Minister agree that it is important that the Commission should not only be fair but should be seen to be fair and that it should operate with objectification—which, I assume, is the noun that comes from the verb "objectify"? Surely it is important that there should be an objective element. The basis of appeal would be widened if the reasonableness were that of a reasonable man rather than that of the Commission.

Mr. Maclennan: It is more desirable for the resolution of any disputes that these matters should be decided by the Commission and that they should not be appealable to the courts. That would be a retrograde step. In the amendment, the Opposition are prepared to obfuscate certainty by seeking to remove from the Commission the right to make that judgment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We have just heard a stirring defence of the state of the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State piled obfus-cation upon objectification in seeking to find a reason why the Government are not prepared to accept this reasonable amendment.
The debate has thrown up one or two important observations. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) has direct experience of the Commission, and his contribution was valuable. The most interesting comments were made by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), who recognised that vital issues are at stake which are important to his constituents. They are so vital that they are ignored completely by his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who does not understand the relationship between profitability and jobs.
The criteria are vitally important. They should be seen to be operated fairly. There is an important distinction between the way in which the new Commission is to operate and the way in which the present Commission operates. The new Commission will have sub-committees of as few as three persons operating within it. Although the Secretary of State has readily responded to the pressure and has made some alterations to the way in which these sub-committees may operate, the criteria will be

interpreted by sub-groups on many occasions. We wish to remove that provision from the Bill.
The relevance of these criteria and their importance must be safeguarded and must be free from being interfered with in an inconsistent manner. When it comes to deciding the relevance of the criteria, Parliament has a role to play. Had the Under-Secretary looked further into the list of amendments, he would have noted an amendment, No. 5, which has not been selected, which also sought to establish this case.
11.0 p.m.
I remind hon. Members that although the Under-Secretary might accuse us of seeking to introduce the code by another name—or by the back door, as he put it—one of the few advantages of the Price Code, and one of the ways in which the Commission operated fairly, was that the code was clear, public and understood, and the Commission had no ability to bend the conditions of the code and was able to interpret it fully and fairly on each occasion because everyone, both those applying for prices and those vetting prices, knew precisely where he was.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said "one advantage". Could he say whether the advantage was to the price fixers or the consumers? Would he not also agree that the Price Code was simply used as a check list and that firms said "How much can we add on for that, that and that?" and it pushed up prices to the extent possible under that code?

Mr. Shaw: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would then be amazed to know that profitability under the Price Code was halved in the three years of its existence, and equally amazed to know that one of the most significant costs under the code was the rapid increase in the costs of labour, brought about, no doubt, by many of his activities.

Mr. Maclennan: In abandoning the Price Code, one of the major considerations in the Government's mind was precisely the converse point of that made by the hon. Gentleman. It was that the code was exceedingly complicated and required a great deal of management time to interpret. It is quite untrue to suggest, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that it was beyond doubt. As it got further and further from its date of introduction, so it


became more and more complex, and so, indeed, it became very consuming of management time. It is an extraordinary defence that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Shaw: I wonder why it is, therefore, that the new Price Commission should have one chairman and three deputy-chairmen, with greater increases in salary, to undertake a task which so clearly is much less than that which the present Chairman of the Price Commission is undertaking. Why is it that the new Commission apparently has a much more onerous role?
The fact remains that under the existing Commission the code was large, cumbersome and unwieldy, and it certainly absorbed great management time. Under the amendment, however, we are discussing the criteria by which prices should be frozen and investigations shall be undertaken. If any hon. Member believes that that is not a matter of great importance, he does not know what the Bill is all about. We on the Opposition Benches are determined to try to ensure that the Commission will operate in the future by the criteria, which remain important and should be fair and not ignored.
In so far as the code which expires on 31st July has any lesson to teach us, it is that where a code is clear and unequivocal it can be established fairly. The Under-Secretary will know that the relationship between the existing Price Commission and industry has at least survived over some years the test of fairness and equity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield so rightly pointed out.
We have not had any single reason offered as to why this modest amendment should not be accepted, other than the fact of the way in which it has been drafted and the glutinous way in which the Under-Secretary found us "objectifying" and "obfuscating". We shall pursue the amendment to a Division. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends so to do.

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 266.

[For Division List No. 160 see c. 1603]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, Amendment No. 82, in page 3, line 28, at end insert:
'and not to have regard to any other matters'.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment, we shall also take Government Amendment No. 11.

Mr. Maclennan: The purpose of the amendment is to provide that the Price Commission, in performing the functions mentioned in subsection (3), must have regard solely to the matters set out in subsections (1) and (2).
In putting forward the amendment the Government intend to give effect to the substance of the amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee, an amendment which was carried and which now constitutes subsection 3(c). The Opposition's amendment seems to us to be defective, and I hope that they will be satisfied that in moving Amendment No. 82 we are meeting their point.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We are grateful to the Government for this amendment. The House will have guessed from the verve with which the Minister moved it that it was a concession. We consider it to be a fairly important concession, although giving effect to a vote which we won in Committee.
This is a point of which the House should be fully aware, because the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) has been continually calling for powers under the Bill to induce companies to enter into planning agreements, whether they want them or not. The purpose of our amendment in Committee was to ensure that the Price Commission had regard only to the criteria in Clause 2—not because we thought that those criteria were adequate but because if they were there the Price Commission would have some regard to them. It precludes any other consideration later of planning agreements or anything else that might be close to the heart of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West. In moving the amendment in Committee, I wanted to make sure that the hon. Gentleman knew exactly what it was all about.

Mr. Ron Thomas: May I ask whether the hon. Lady is all right?

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am fine.

Mr. Thomas: I take the point that, un-fortunately—and I am sad about this—the Government have accepted the situation as it happened in Committee and have been forced to move their amendment to cover the matter. They have slightly reworded the provision, but in essence it amounts to the same thing. I am sorry that, having set out the criteria in Clause 2, they believe that that is the beginning and end of any possible criteria in the lifetime of the Price Commission—unless it is suggested that at some stage we shall have an opportunity to amend it.
A number of my hon. Friends and I attempted by an amendment to try to include as one of the yardsticks under Clause 2 the planning agreement concept. I believe that planning agreements, which were central to the Labour Government's industrial policy and our election manifesto, link up with all the other yardsticks in regard to capital investment, the question of producing goods and services efficiently, planning, expansion of business and research and development. All those aspects were covered in our concept of planning agreements.
I regret that the Government were unable to accept an amendment on those lines. It would have been possible for the Price Commission to impose a complete freeze on price increases until a company had entered into a planning agreement with the Government and trade unions concerned. I am sad that the Government have now accepted the Opposition's amendment, because it is tantamount to suggesting that these are the only things that should be looked at. In a few weeks, months or even one year's time there may be other important factors that the Commission ought to take into account, and this will restrict the Commission severely.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I am sorry to intrude on what seems to be an occasion of some sort of private grief between the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and the Government. It is another one of those disputes between the Labour Party and the Government.
I thought that the Minister was rather brief. That may have been all right for hon. Members who served on the Com-

mittee, but those of us who did not do so deserve from the Minister the courtesy of a fuller explanation about how he has become convinced that the Opposition were right in moving the amendment in Committee. I want to hear more from the Minister about why he thinks it right to resist the amendment put forward by his hon. Friends who are so keen on planning agreements and the enforcement of such agreements. Why is the Minister so much against using the Bill as a vehicle for forcing the planning agreements that his hon. Friends want?
Intuitively, I feel that the Minister is right and that his hon. Friends are wrong, but the Minister owes it to the House to give a fuller explanation of the virtues of the amendment which he so quickly and glibly glossed over. I want to support the Minister. It is my natural reaction in this reasonable stand, but I am worried about his dispute with his hon. Friends. Before I finally cast my vote one way or another, I should like to hear from the hon. Gentleman why he agrees with us and not with his hon. Friends below the Gangway—who, after all, constitute the majority of his party—and why he believes that they are wrong.

Mr. Loyden: The clause deals with the matters to which the Commission should have regard, and I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) in expressing disappointment that the matters that were raised on the clause in Committee have not been given full consideration by the Government.
One point which was raised in Committee by my hon. Friends and myself—and I accept that the Government now make reference to this in a later clause—was that of hidden prices. The argument ought to have been met in this clause. By implication, the Government agree with the arguments that were put forward at Second Reading about hidden prices being relevant to the Bill. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to the point, and he welcomed the fact that we had raised this important issue. In those circumstances, I should have thought that it would be politic for the Government to enshrine the point in this part of the Bill.
Hidden prices are a matter of major concern to the consumer. I am well


aware that this is not just a matter of the price mechanism but that it concerns the quality and quantity of goods. That also needs the attention of the Price Commission. Other points that were mentioned on Second Reading about the desirability of encouraging cost reductions through the improvement and use of resources are also relevant in dealing with the whole matter of the price mechanism and control. Reductions in cost through improvements in the use of resources are also important, because it has been argued that the Bill is part of the Government's whole strategy and that it will encourage efficiency. Therefore, it is right that we should register our concern. I hope that even at this late hour consideration will be given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the introduction of these imporant matters.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already addressed the House on this amendment, and this is Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 30 after "recover", insert "all".
The debate on a similar amendment was one of the very few bad-tempered debates in Committee. The bad temper arose because the amendment was so obviously sensible and not offensive, and it so obviously would help and not undermine the Bill, that we did not think there could be any possible objection to it. To our utter astonishment, however, the Minister said that he did not think that the amendment was necessary because, provided that a supplier was efficient, all his costs would be allowed. The Minister then went on to argue—for a trumped-up reason that even he seemed not to find very convincing—that he could not accept the amendment.
If the amendment were accepted, subsection (2)(a) would say that the Com-

mission had to take account of, amongst other things,
the need to recover all costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services".
We say that the word "all" is important. A number of people in industry are convinced that without it the clause would be defective.
The Minister has said that it is his intention that all costs should be allowed. If he would say "This is a perfectly sensible little amendment. We have now had time to reconsider it, and we accept it.", the House could quickly move to the next of the remaining 37 debates.

Mr. Maclennan: I wish that I could accommodate the hon. Member for Hert-fordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who has made his speech very reasonably, but on further reflection he is likely to realise that the amendment would be rather burdensome to industry and would out-weigh any safeguard that he is anxious to provide.
It would be a great mistake for the Commission to feel that it was constrained to investigate every cost element which might not have been advanced by the company concerned in its original submission, where it considers that costs are relevant. As I made plain in an earlier debate, part of the purpose of our moving towards this system of price control is to minimise the administrative burden upon industry without in any way minimising the effectiveness of the control. I think that what the hon. Gentleman has in mind is undesirable from industry's point of view.

Mr. Neubert: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) will find that reply most unsatisfactory and very little different from the one we received in Committee. It shows no sign of progress on what is quite an important point. On the last amendment but one we sought to delete four words and substitute two. Now we have even an more modest ambition, to insert only one word, but even that is not acceptable to the Government. The Government find even one word choking in their gullet.
It could be said that "costs" implies all costs since it has no other qualification and that "all" would be redundant, but it appears from what the Minister has


said that not all costs will be taken into account under the Bill. He has said that, if a company has to count all costs in its submission, that would be an unnecessary burden, but surely any company wishing to make a submission for a proposed price increase would want to bring forward as many costs as it could in justification of the increase.
It is important to the company and not a burden on it to established all the costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services. Surely the safeguard that the Government require is in the criteria dealing with the efficiency of the operation and the fact that there should be no opportunity for companies to be wasteful in expenditure and to recoup that wasted money from the public through higher prices. As they have that safeguard, why cannot the Government accept the insertion of one word to make clear that the Commission should have regard to all costs?
There is a current illustration of why we should be apprehensive on what appears to be a retatively small point. Under the existing Price Code, not all costs are acceptable as a justification for price increases. Only "allowable" costs can be submitted. The distinction is important. This reasonable amendment could be accepted by a Government who were prepared to concede reasonable arguments. If there are no signs of the Government relenting, I hope that we shall divide.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I oppose the insertion of the word "all". It is all very well to say that this is the sting in the tail in the sense of the inefficient supply of goods and services, but, if a firm decides to spend a considerable sum on advertising or giving away gimmicks, it could try to insist that this expenditure was part of the efficient supply of goods and services. I hope that the Commission would reject such a submission. We spend far too much on advertising and gimmicks.

Mr. Tim Smith: If the Commission considers that advertising costs are in excess of what is necessary in order to market a product efficiently, that is taken into account in the clause which refers specifically to the efficient supply of goods.

Mr. Thomas: I can imagine circumstances in which the Commission would judge that some costs should not be taken into account, and it should have the power to act in those cases.
I notice that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) did not go on to quote the rest of Clause 2(2)(a), namely:
and in maintaining the value of the relevant businesses ".
I am worried about the criteria in the clause. Increasingly, it seems that the consumer is expected to pay for expansion, the maintenance of the value of relevant businesses, the purchase of capital equipment and so on. Is the shareholder now defunct and finished? Has the Stock Exchange come to an end? Will hon. Members tell us what has happened? It seems that it is the consumer who is expected to maintain the value of the "relevant businesses". I am sure that when the hon. Member for Hertford-shire, South picks up his textbooks on O-level economics he will read that, when a firm wants to expand or maintain the value of the business, it borrows money or gets more shareholders to put up money.
We hear time and time again from Opposition Members that not enough profits have been made and not enough dividends have been paid out for money to be ploughed back into industry. Nothwithstanding those arguments, they are now demanding that housewives and other consumers should meet all the costs of maintaining the value of the "relevant businesses". I shall not support any amendment of that sort.

Mr. David Price: I shall not follow the O-level economics of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). If I did so, the hon. Gentleman and I would detain the House for a very long time.
I return to the rather narrow point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson). I think that the Under-Secretary of State has his answer if he goes back to the earlier part of the clause, which reads:
It shall be the duty of the Commission, in performing any functions mentioned in subsection (3) of this section—
(a) to have regard to all matters which appear to the Commission in the particular circumstances to be relevant".


That seems to be a qualification. Further, in an earlier debate we retained
as the Commission consider them relevant".
It seems that those are two qualifications already on the Commission's terms of reference. Surely that covers any fear that if the word "all" were added there would be submissions for frivolous costs. Under the wording of the clause, it would be open to the Commission to regard them as not being relevant.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Neubert) said that under the previous dispensation of the Commission only certain factors were regarded as relevant. In moving on to the new regime, which I understand the Secretary of State sees as leading to more permanent machinery than the previous constitution of the Commission, it is important to get these matters right. Surely the Government can accept "all" with the qualifications already written into the clause without giving anything away.
It is no secret that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have received representations on this issue. If the Government accepted the amendment, they would give nothing away in what they are attempting. At least it would be a conciliatory gesture. Even if the Government care to ignore my right hon. and hon. Friends, perhaps they will bear in mind that these are important matters when dealing with industry and trade, with which the Commission must live as long as it exists.

Mr. Tim Smith: This is an important amendment. The cost referred to in Clause 2(2)(a) are those incurred both
in efficiently supplying goods and services and in maintaining the value of the relevant businesses".
Following the experience of industry in dealing with the Price Commission under the present code, which I think is in stage 5, it is important that there should be reassurance for industry that under the Bill there will not be any arbitrary exclusion of costs. As my hon. Friends have already said, under the existing code there is the important distinction between allowable and non-allowable costs. We want to be clear that in future there will not be such things as non-allowable costs or any question, for example, of productivity deductions, with the exception

which is already provided in the clause where costs are incurred in the inefficient supply of goods and services. That distinction should be made.
The Minister's objection to the amendment—I think he said this in Committee—is that it will increase the administrative burden for industry. If there is to be a distinction between costs that are incurred in the efficient supply on the one hand and costs that are incurred in the non-efficient supply on the other hand, there will be a burden on industry in arguing with the Commission about which costs were incurred in the efficient supply and which were incurred in the non-efficient supply. I can imagine the correspondence that would take place on what was efficient and what was not. That is a good example of speculative judgment. It might be called an accountant's nightmare.
11.45 p.m.
I come now to the question of maintaining the value of the business. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) did not seem to understand the distinction between maintaining and expanding the value of a business. He thought that the shareholders should be called upon to maintain the value of the business. The shareholders or the stock market should be called on if the business is to be expanded. But in times of high inflation businesses have a problem in maintaining the value of their business. That is why this must be a relevant factor when the Price Commission is considering price increases or the price levels for a company or industry. I should be interested to know the attitude of the Government to this aspect.
Under the Bill there will be no detailed code that the Commission will follow. I am interested to know how the matter of maintaining the value of the business will be defined. There is a fundamental distinction between maintaining the value of a business in historical cost terms and maintaining its value in current cost terms.
The Government have accepted the need for a change in current cost accounts.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Given the hon. Gentleman's view that it should be the consumer who has to maintain the value of the business along with other expansion later on, does he not accept that the whole risk element has been taken out?

Mr. Smith: No. The question of the risk involved was raised in the debate on a previous amendment. Government supporters did not understand what this meant. Nor did they understand how the Price Commission would determine the risk. If I put my money into a building society and receive 11 per cent, interest if I do nothing, I should want much more than 11 per cent, on the capital employed if I involved my money in risk. Most industrial companies are not achieving that rate. There is no incentive. That is what is meant when we speak of the risk involved. But we are not talking about that now. We are discussing maintaining the value of a business.
The Government should make more clear their position on what they mean by maintaining the value of the business. This matter is still the subject of discussion. Businesses should be permitted, as they are under the present code, to make an upwards adjustment for depreciation. I am sure that this practice will continue, although it is not clear whether the present adjustment under the existing code, or a new depreciation adjustment based on replacement cost or fixed assets, will be permitted.
The same applies to working capital. The value of working capital must also be maintained. I am not clear that this will necessarily be allowed, although under the present code there is an allowance for the replacement cost of stock in the same way as there is tax relief for stock. We need clarification of what is meant in respect of working capital.
The question of all the costs involved in maintaining the value of the business is as important as the efficient supply of goods and services. For these reasons, I think that the amendment should be supported.

Mr. Loyden: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the question of the continuing reliance upon consumers to meet every element of risk that is involved in industry and commerce. An important alteration is proposed in the clause by the insertion of the word "all". It makes the relevant part of the clause dealing with the costs incurred in the efficient supply of goods and services subservient to the word "all". Therefore,

there would be no control over inefficient and non-essential use of capital in the way that business often uses it.
Much of the inefficiency of industry and commerce is borne by the consumer. Consumer protection should be enshrined in a clause. The Opposition have not said a word in this debate about the consumer. All they have talked about is the protection of business profits and interest. The Bill is intended to protect the consumer, and I should have thought that by this time the Opposition would want that object achieved as well.

Mr. Tebbit: The best possible way of considering the consumer is to remember that since the present Government came to office, with all their paraphernalia of nonsense, the value of the consumer's pound has declined to 45p. If hon. Members wanted to protect the consumer, they could put down a motion of confidence and defeat the Government. On a narrower front, they could gut the Bill and throw it away.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant with both sides. Now that the hon. Gentleman has had his canter, it would be a great help if he would come to the amendment.

Mr. Tebbit: I am willing to come under starter's orders and get into the race. My problem is knowing why the Minister is resisting the amendment. He did not tell us. In racing terms still, he has blinkers on. He does not know what he is up to any more than we do. I suspect that he cannot even read his Civil Service brief, or he would have gone on longer.
The hon. Gentleman has not said whether the Bill already requires the Commission to take all costs into account and that, therefore, the amendment is otiose, or whether there are some costs which he believes should be excluded. Without the amendment, would some costs be disallowed? If he did not know the answer to that straightforward question, the Minister would not have been able to make his case, poorly though he made it. I notice that he is looking anxiously towards the Officials' Box even for the answer to that question.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned advertising and free gimmicks.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Only as an example.

Mr. Tebbit: Indeed. The more examples we get the better, because through them we might work to the generality of the issue.
Will advertising and further gimmicks be allowable costs if the Bill is enacted as drafted? For example, will expenditure on trading stamps be allowable? The Minister is now consulting his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, let alone the civil servants. Again, are the costs involved in industrial disputes, which the management of a company feels it ought to resist to make sure that it operates efficiently, allowable? Are they in or out? They would obviously be brought in by the word "all". But are they in at present?
Suppose, for example, that a company, having decided to take on a political or industrial adviser—a consultant—were to take leave of its collective mind and take on the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West to deal with its problems in getting efficient and good industrial relations. Suppose that a company said to the hon. Gentleman "We have poor industrial relations and we need to know how to improve them in order"—in the words of the Bill—"'to be consistent with the making of adequate profits by efficient suppliers of goods and services'. Will you help us?" I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, being the kind of chap he is, would say "I should not want to be paid for that."
On the other hand, because he is a Socialist and does not want to be paid for anything—we know that Socialists do not accept payment or profit beyond the absolute minimum for their needs, which is how some of them have become so extraordinarily rich—the hon. Gentleman, being a principled fellow, would no doubt say "I have to come here by chauffeur-driven limousine and there is, of course, lunch as well as one or two other little expenses." Would those costs be allowable under the Bill as drafted? It is important to the House, and even more important to those outside, to know about these matters.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Mr. Ron Thomas rose——

Mr. Tebbit: A company might want to know in order to decide whether to

offer a consultancy to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, to whom I gladly give way

Mr. Ron Thomas: I think the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talked about a chauffeur-driven limousine and other expenses. Is he talking from experience?

Mr. Tebbit: I regret to say that I have no experience of these matters at all.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Gentleman disappoints me.

Mr. Tebbit: It is a grave disappointment to me. If the hon. Gentleman wants to advertise the fact that my services are available, it will be very kind of him. It might be picked up somewhere. As the House knows, I am an expert on defusing nasty industrial situations which might from time to time lead to violence. I am eager to know whether such expenses arc allowable as the Bill is drafted. If not, I think that we should press the amendment to a vote.
To be rather more serious than the certain amount of leg-pulling in which I have indulged, as opposed to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, who might or might not be a reputable consultant—I understand that he has never been a consultant, so I do not know how good he would be—there are a number of reputable consultants who might or might not be taken on by companies, and those companies want to know whether such expenses would be allowable.
I come back to the specific questions which I put to the Minister. Are there some costs which, as the Bill is drafted, would be disallowed? In particular, would expenditure on trading stamps be allowed or disallowed as the Bill is drafted?

12 Midnight

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) told us of his experiences with O-level economics, but he did not say whether he had passed or failed. If, as I suspect, it was the latter, that would explain some of his recent contributions.
I think that the hon. Gentleman answered the Minister. The Minister told us that his reason for rejecting this eminently reasonable amendment was that apparently it would be a great burden


upon industry. He was not very convincing when he put forward that argument, but perhaps I may return to that later. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West saw it not as a burden on industry but as an opportunity for industry to pass on unwarranted costs to the consumer. We now have a situation with which we are familiar—total disagreement between the Government Front Bench and the majority of Back Benchers.
Does the proposal represent a burden on industry? Is the Minister right to defend industry against this unreasonable burden that the Opposition are seeking to impose upon it? Alternatively, is the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West right to say that we are opening the gates to allow unreasonable costs to be passed on?
The Minister is trying to pull a fast one. I was anxious to learn from the debate. I was not privileged to serve on the Committee. I sat here impressed with the skill with which my hon. Friends deployed their arguments and their obvious tenacity after having lived through weeks of debate on all these technical matters. I thought that nothing could be more reasonable than the amendment. It seemed sensible to argue that all costs incurred in the efficient supply of goods and services should be allowable.
My hon. Friend argued that industry wanted the amendment, but the Minister said that it was an unreasonable burden on industry. The Minister is telling us that he knows better than industrialists. That is the philosophy that runs through the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he knows what is good for industry and the consumer better than they do.
This is a reasonable amendment which has been rejected on specious grounds. The Minister is obliged to tell us which costs should not be allowable. He has said that not all costs incurred in the efficient supply of goods and services will be allowable, but he has failed to tell us which costs will be allowable.
The Minister's argument is that the amendment would impose a burden on industry because of the necessity of investigating all such costs. That pinpoints the sheer nonsense of the whole operation. Presumably, if an industrialist does not wish to make a claim for legi-

timate expenses he will not do so. If he feels that he has a case, he will make a claim and be ready to accept that it might be investigated. For the Minister to say that every claim must be investigated by the Commission demonstrates the sheer bureaucratic folly of the operation. I do not understand how businesses can be expected to make intelligent decisions in a climate like this.
The Minister owes it to the House to give a better explanation of why he feels that all expenses incurred in this fashion cannot be allowed. He has given a poor explanation. If this has been his attitude throughout, my hon. Friends who suffered in Committee have my sympathy.

Mr. Parkinson: I should like to wind up the debate, because it seems that the Minister has nothing to add to his totally inadequate earlier reply. As he said, I moved the amendment very briefly and reasonably, because it is a very brief and reasonable amendment. All that we got from the Minister was a rehash of the very bad answer that his colleague gave in Committee.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith), who is not in the Chamber at present, on his first interventions during a Report stage. He has shown the House what an asset he will be. He is extremely well informed and has made two very useful interventions.
I deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). I have heard about people who are dominated by the conspiracy theory of politics, but I have never come across anyone with such a bad attack of that problem as the hon. Member. Here we have the simple suggestion to insert in a subsection the word "all", which would be qualified by the fact that all costs would have to be incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services—not just any old costs, but only all the costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services—and then in maintaining the value of the relevant businesses.
The hon. Member seems to see something very offensive about maintaining the value of the relevant businesses. Perhaps I may tell him in simple terms that what it means is making sure that the


business is not making a loss and thereby using up its assets. That may not seem very important to him, but the basis of employment for people is the fact that the business they are in remains viable. All that the subsection would say is that the Commission should make sure that one of the things that it can take into account is the need for the business to remain viable. Every person who works in business needs the business to be capable of doing just that.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Taking this subsection along with all the others, in essence it means that the consumer will be paying for all these additional costs, maintaining value, expansion and all the rest. One of the best arguments for public ownership is that the consumer should own these things if he has to pay for them.

Mr. Parkinson: The truth of the matter is that only in the public sector could losses of the kind that have been incurred be incurred and still allow people to remain in jobs, yet the hon. Gentleman's Government are saying that they cannot carry on having losses in the public sector because if they have to keep subsidising the public sector they will be undermining the private sector. The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. He must try to understand this matter and put his prejudices on one side just once in a while.
It is vitally important for the workers, who themselves are consumers, that the businesses for which they work should stay in business. That is the way in which people will be able to afford to live. There is nothing sinister and nothing of which to be scared in the subsection. It is very important to all of us that British industry remains viable and that the Commission is allowed to take that factor into account in arriving at its decisions.
The introduction of the word "all", which the Minister said would be a burden on British business, is being requested by British business for the very simple reason that industry wants to be assured about a very simple point—that is, that all costs incurred in providing the efficient supply of goods and services should be allowed. Industry is not sure that the Commission would not decide, for instance, that only a proportion of

properly incurred costs need be recovered by the company. The clause could easily be read in that way—that, whether or not the costs were properly incurred, the Commission could decide not to allow all of them. Industry simply says that we should put in the word "all", which would remove ambiguity and make the clause clearer. The Minister has already said that it is what he wants. The Opposition simply do not understand why the Government are being so obdurate.

Mr. Tebbit: During my hon. Friend's time in serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill, did he discover whether the Minister thought that the Bill as presently drafted meant that a company would be able to recover all costs? The Minister seems to be very reticent about that. Does my hon. Friend know the Minister's intention? The Minister clearly does not want to say what his intention is.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend asks a question which I am not qualified to answer. All I can tell him is that in Committee, when we put to the Minister the points which he has put to him today, we were given exactly the same answer as we have had today. One has formed the distinct impression that neither the Minister then nor the Minister today understood the answer he was reading. In their defence, I must say that neither Minister gave the impression that his heart was in his answer. They both seemed embarrassed at having to say "No".
We have had a much longer debate than I imagined on a point which should not have detained the House at all, because it is obviously a simple, sensible and fair amendment.

Mr. Neubert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You mentioned earlier that it was only possible for a Member to contribute once to the debate on an amendment on Report. Can you confirm that the Minister could have contributed again by leave of the House, and that if he has not done so it is by his own wish and not because of the procedures of the House?

Mr. Speaker: A Member who moves an amendment and the Minister are able to speak again if they so wish.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 273.

[For Division List No. 161 see c. 1607]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 3, after 'expansion', insert 'in the United Kingdom'.
In Committee my hon. Friends, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), asked for an assurance that among the criteria expansion would be limited to expansion of business activities in the United Kingdom and that we should seek to discriminate between expansion of business overseas and expansion in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to consider the point further, and this amendment is intended to meet it. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I very much welcome the amendment. We have heard no mention by Conservatives of the consumer. They are not concerned with the consumer—indeed, it seems to be a dirty word for them. The only word they keep repeating is "profit".
As the provision originally stood, it meant that consumers would have to pay higher prices so that multinational companies and others could expand overseas to the detriment of employment, economic growth and export potential in the domestic British economy. There are those who argue that there are certain advantages to be gained from capital investment overseas, which last year ran at a figure of £2,000 million. In the last five years the figure has been as much as £7,000 million. But if we examine in detail the balance of payments red book, we see that little of the profits from the companies which have expanded overseas ever returns to the United Kingdom balance of payments. Although there are regulations to the effect that two-thirds should come back to this country, the fact is that only one-third has returned here in recent years.
12.30 a.m.
I welcome the amendment but I ask the Government for a further assurance.

because to allow firms to put up their prices simply in order to expand their business suggests that consumers could be asked to pay for takeover bids of many kinds. We have seen many such takeover bids in the past, most of which have been carried out simply for asset stripping and so on. There have been many cases where this general term of expansion of companies has really meant something that has been done to achieve the highest possible level of profitability without concern for employment or for the best interests of the British people or the economy.
It would be quite wrong that firms should be allowed to put up their prices so that there can be takeover bids—and that has happened. Once the takeovers have been completed, there has been asset stripping, establishments have been closed down and there have been redundancies. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance on that aspect. However, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who has had to leave for a short while, and my other hon. Friends, I welcome what the Government have done.

Mr. David Price: I wish to reply now to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), but I hope to catch the eye of the Chair in order to speak on the next group of amendments as well. I shall then support the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in trying to fortify competition. The House will remember that during Question Time today I put it to the Government that the best way of protecting the consumer was by trying to fortify competition. The next group of amendments attempts to do that.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West has brought up on this amendment a point that he has mentioned before—the sad song that the consumer is not mentioned in every amendment. The hon. Member lives in a curious fantasy world of his own in Bristol, North-West. However, we are confident that he will not be representing that constituency for much longer, so the House should not be detained by his views.
I have a certain sympathy for the point of view that consideration should be given to where capital will be used. However, I should have thought that the Government could give a better explanation than


they have given so far about why the words in the amendment should be added. Those words would have the effect of restricting the expansion of companies abroad in support of British exports. I do not need to tell the Minister that it is often necessary to spend money abroad in order to export. That seems to be a proper use of resources. Indeed, much of the Third world needs such expansion and we are encouraged by United Nations agencies to do more manufacturing in those countries. It is perfectly proper for a British company to spend some of its resources in setting up in the Third world a factory which would give a base for further exports. I am sure that many hon. Members know that in the case of an increasing number of products it is impossible to sell the finished article in Third world markets.
In order to maintain employment in this country, we must assemble products in those countries while the more sophisticated work is done here. That is the cost of keeping ahead of the game technologically in Britain. Surely that is a proper use of resources. I should have thought that the Government would be anxious for us to do more for Third world countries and to help them to pull themselves up by their boot strings, and that the Government would realise that it is necessary for us to spend capital in order to do that.
A typical example is to be found in the motor industry. British Leyland finds it necessary to export lorries in knockdown form for assembly abroad. Do the Government think that that is wrong? We must guess that they do, and certainly that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West would regard it as contrary to his view of the national interest, although no doubt when we debate underdeveloped countries he will say that we must do more to help them.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will know, if he looks at the balance of payments statistics on the export of capital, that the vast bulk of it goes to the highly industrialised countries of Western Europe or South Africa or the other highly industrialised countries such as the United States and those in the Commonwealth, and not to the underdeveloped world.

Mr. Price: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, coming from the stable that he does, regards South Africa as being fully developed. I should have thought there was a strong case—I would deploy it, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman feels differently—for saying that there is a degree of underdevelopment among the population of South Africa.

Mr. Ron Thomas: And Britain.

Mr. Price: Of course. That is why we want to get back to a proper rate of economic growth. Until we do, most of our problems will remain insoluble.
I return to the Minister's proposal to limit the subsection to the United Kingdom. He has given us no case so far. He has assumed, as is becoming the increasing habit of Ministers on Report, that all hon. Members were members of the Standing Committee, which is not so. The hon. Gentleman should give us a better explanation, and I hope that he will seek leave to reply.

Mr. Nelson: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate because I feel that the amendment is particularly important. There is a theme from both sides of the House that could be met. The Minister may have tried to meet it with the amendment, but I have serious misgivings about it. I believe that its eventual effect will be very detrimental to even the best desires felt on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) spoke particularly about the way in which prices which might be excessive in this country would be used to finance expansion abroad. I am open to correction, but I understand that the subsection refers specifically in a limited way to innovation and development. It contains nothing to prevent a United Kingdom company charging a substantial price out of which a substantial amount of resources could then be used for setting up capital plant abroad.
All that the amended subsection will say is that, in working out what is an adequate rate of return on capital employed, the Price Commission must have particular regard to all the elements spent on innovation, on improving and on developing new products for sale abroad, where that will not result in expansion in the United Kingdom. I hope that that


is well understood by the hon. Gentleman and some other Labour Members whose intentions, while they are not being frustrated, are certainly not being met in the amendment.

Mr. Loyden: I am sorry if I have not followed the hon. Gentleman as carefully as I might have done. Is he suggesting that the innovations to which he refers would be best served by investing capital abroad?

Mr. Nelson: No. That was not what I was suggesting.
The amendment could be extremely prejudicial to opportunities for expansion of British companies in this country and the expansion of their profits, activities and employment opportunities internationally, a large part of the benefit of which will accrue directly to the Government through tax payments and to shareholders and consumers in this country.
This part of the Bill refers to the encouragement of research and development in the innovation and development of new products. I believe passionately that one of our major post-war failings has been that we have been unable to devote adequate money, in the public or the private sector, to research and development, not only in new products but in new production tecehniques. This latter point is particularly important. If we look at major industries in other developed industrialised countries, we can see that research and development in production research has enabled them to automate processes and make strides in increasing productivity and their competitive position.
The decline in the rate of investment and productivity in this country is a reflection of the low levels of research and development, and we should be seriously concerned about any legislative proposals that may mitigate against further research and development here.
Clause 2 (2)(c) (ii) refers to the promotion of innovations and technical improvements in the expansion of enterprises. It is wholly desirable that any international company that is registered and has a productive base in the United Kingdom should be able to devote a portion of its resources to promotion of innovations and technical improvements

and the expansion of plant in markets abroad.
Famous British companies such as ICI and Dunlop undertake a substantial amount of research and development on innovative and technical improvement work in this country that is used in developing countries and industrialised countries, and they devote substantial resources to new productive plant in developing countries that can be used to import employment, teechnical skills and labour from Britain. Through the process of dividends—which some Labour Members may argue is not adequate—a return accrues to this country, and a company that is United Kingdom-registered and based has to produce accounts showing the public, consumers and shareholders that an adequate return has been obtained.
The amendment would allow the Price Commission to disregard that element of resources spent on research and development in the United Kingdom even though it may be used subsequently for the development of plants abroad. This may have a detrimental effect on companies in this country, on our unemployment and on any technological leads that we may have developed in particular areas of research.

Mr. Loyden: I go at least part of the way with the hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that, although some of the greatest technological innovations have taken place in this country, there is evidence, especially in telecommunications, that they are being transferred abroad? The Thorn case, in which a factory was transferred to Japan, is an example. The Lucas presentation, which involves going abroad for development and innovation, is being resisted by the Lucas management——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take part in the debate he may do so, but I do not think that an intervention should be as long as the one that he has begun, otherwise we shall be sitting on Saturday and Sunday too.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Nelson: I appreciate the drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention and I go along with him to an extent. We have been a great country for winning Nobel


Prizes, but since the war we have been less able in translating those prizes into products that people want to buy at the right price and in sufficient quantity. There are a variety of reasons for that.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be one of the first to read the findings and report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which has been giving specific consideration to the problems of technological transfer and encouraging new and smaller-base high technology industries in this country.
It must be a matter of concern to both sides of the House, and one that is central to discussion of the amendment, that there should be adequate encouragement of and resources made available for the development of new ideas. However, I parry the hon. Gentleman's intervention by saying that, if we have an economic situation in which a young research graduate coming from the research laboratories with a good idea finds that the cost of borrowing money to fund the initial product, which has market potential, is substantially above the likely average rate of real return that he will make, substantial commitment is involved even if he can offer the security to get hold of the money that is required. It also involves substantial risk, which in present economic circumstances he is unlikely to meet.
It is that wider fiscal and economic environment which militates against the take-up of many of the greatest ideas that we have had, in addition to which the size of our economic base and the size of many of our companies and the market that certain specialised products can supply are much more limited than in the case of the Japanese market, which is twice as large as ours, or the American market. That is another reason for many of us taking the view that positive advantages may come from our membership of the European Community and should be developed. At least the Community has a substantially larger market for many of the new high technology products that we have developed.
I return more specifically to the finite provisions of the amendment. Why should the cost of research and development of products that are to be manufactured where they are perhaps most

suitable, which in some instances may not be in this country, be particularly allowable by the Commission in assessing an adequate rate of return for the company involved? It seems that the amendment is diametrically inconsistent with paragraph (h), which provides that the Commission must take account of
the need to avoid detriment, from restraints on prices and charges, to the United Kingdom balance of payments and the need to increase the share of United Kingdom enterprises in markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
If a United Kingdom-based company is able and willing to develop a product abroad, and is willing to set up a manufacturing plant abroad for a product which has been developed in its initial stages in this country because it feels that it has worldwide application and that for good commercial and economic reasons the productive plant for the product should be near the source of product—it may be crop-based or based on a raw material—by investing in it it will earn a rate of return that will be of substantial benefit for the Government, who will take half the consolidated profits of the company, as well as substantially enhancing employment opportunities and the potential for investment in this country through retained group profits. I believe that that is wholly desirable. But why should an amendment not allow the company to pass on the cost of the research and development work on a product which would be of benefit to us all but will be excluded as one of the considerations by the Price Commission?

Mr. Ron Thomas: We are talking not only about British companies. We are also talking about multinational companies that are foreign-owned. They already get up to enough financial manipulations as it is. The hon. Gentleman is inviting them to select the United Kingdom in which to undertake work the cost of which can be passed on to the consumers and the benefits of which can be passed on to the multinational companies in other markets.

Mr. Nelson: I shall deal later with international, or multinational, companies. I hope that the Minister will answer the points made by hon. Members and not merely provide further justification for this important amendment.
What is meant by
expansion in the United Kingdom"?


"Expansion" may have a number of meanings. Does it mean expansion in terms of the definition and for the purposes of the Price Commission? Does it mean expansion in capital plant or in turnover attributable to the United Kingdom operation, or in the number of people employed in this country? Does it mean an expansion of the whole asset base of a company which may be registered wholly or partly in this country? Is it the consolidated profit base of the entire group, taking into account its international operations, which may be based in this country? If so, the purpose of the amendment is frustrated.
If we talk about the expansion of a company, we must define what the expansion means. If it takes into account the receipt of dividends from foreign plant which has been set up in consequence of research and development activities in this country, well and good, but in that case the amendment is totally redundant.
The amendment will prevent expenditure on jobs, progress and research and development in the United Kingdom by international companies, which cannot necessarily take account of the cost of that research and development in setting prices that will apply in this country and abroad when work as a result of the research and development may be done elsewhere.
The amendment does not overcome a large part of the problem referred to by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West. He referred to the way in which international companies are aided and sometimes transfer their assets and decide to start—as well as to close—plants. That is a subject for another debate. It is a value judgment. We may not share the same opinion on the extent to which that can and should be controlled. In this instance, however, where we are discussing the provision of funds for the improvement or development of new products, my point is that for an international company, as well as for a United Kingdom company, the amendment will provide a substantial restraint on its willingness to undertake research and development in this country resulting in an improved product that would benefit all groups.
This is not a partisan point. Unless I am completely overlooking an area of inadequate interpretation, I do not believe that the Government's amendment meets the point raised in Committee. It will mitigate against the future of research and development in many industrial areas.
If the amendment is passed, what will be the status of grants or contract work by businesses to universities or independent teams to do research which will show a profit but may involve production or sales abroad? Many companies make substantial contributions in this way, often benefiting this country in dividends and transfer payment from British citizens abroad. The amendment may prejudice the financing of such projects by limiting the extent to which the costs of development can be passed on in prices.
What will be the status of in-house research and development of products or techniques which may be used abroad, raising a substantial sum in licences and royalties and creating a valuable number of British jobs abroad? Many British manufacturing and services companies are designing new production plants and doing research which is critical to the development of an industrial base in many Third world countries. Some have sales in this country. It is a worthy commercial decision to cover group costs with the price of the product. The cross-subsidisation of products is a matter for the company and would normally be taken into account in the corporate structure, but such research and development activities by British companies selling designs and techniques abroad and earning British licence fees will be prejudiced by the amendment.
What is the status of joint ventures by British and foreign companies developing products for sale here and abroad? They will be far more likely to choose a site for the research where they will be allowed to pass on the costs in the price of the product. If the research and development is not attributable to subsequent sales here—if it is not among the Commission's criteria—that will weigh the decision in favour of doing the research and development abroad. We have a desperate paucity of facilities and opportunities in this area, and the amendment may worsen the chances of people looking for such work in future.
I reiterate that I genuinely believe that these are points that the Minister may not have taken fully into account in formulating the amendment. If passed, the amendment will work against the intention enunciated in Committee and will certainly act to the detriment of progress in research and scientific endeavour in this country.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall shortly be following my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) in the views that he expressed.
I hope that I shall not be out of order in speaking for the first time on Report if I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on having selected one of my constituents to be Chairman of the Price Commission. However bad the Bill and however bad the Commission, it cannot but be improved by having one of my constituents as chairman.
I am not addicted to many forms of recycling—I suspect that recycling appeals to supporters of the amendment—but one form to which I am addicted is the preparation of notes for speeches in the House on the backs of invitation cards which hon. Members receive to attend various functions.
By chance, the card on which these notes have been made is an invitation from the City of London Trade Club, which, the card tells me, was founded in 1720—the year in which the South Sea Bubble burst and a commendable sign of optimism and enterprise on the part of the City of London in hard times.
The card goes on to point out that the club is incorporated with the Trader's Society, which was founded in 1739, that having been the first year of the war of Jenkin's Ear—a war which, no doubt, may shortly break out again in Brussels. But again the City of London took a forward-looking and progressive stance at a time of economic trouble.
The spirit which motivated both those actions has a great deal to do with the major contribution that the City of London makes to our balance of payments. But that optimism is in sharp contrast with the pessimism which motivates this amendment. The amendment, with its pessimism, is opposed to the multinational

company. At least in terms of the postwar era, the multinational company is one of the phenomena of our age. It has been one of the major engines of growth for the considerable economic prosperity which the world has seen over the last quarter of a century.
There is anxiety on the Government Benches about the multinational company being used for the adjustment of taxes around the world. I remember being in Brussels six years ago when the then American Ambassador to OECD described a Committee which the OECD had set up to consider the problems of taxation in a multinational world. He said that the various member countries had been asked to indicate whether they thought that supranational taxation powers were in any way necessary to combat the multinational company. The conclusion of that Committee, six years ago, was that no further powers were needed and that each of the member countries had powers of its own to deal with it.
It comes as no surprise to me that in the last six years the taxing authorities and the internal revenue services of the various countries have in fact been collaborating so much more closely than in the past. The apprehension about the multinational company being used as a vehicle for the adjustment of taxation has increasingly seemed to me to be an illusion. I have a sense that, just as generals are accused of always fighting the battles of the last war rather than looking forward, so, in our anxiety about the multinational company today, we are fighting similar former battles when the world economy is in fact moving into a new strategic era.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) quoted figures for foreign investment out of this country. He said that it amounted to £2,000 million. That is exactly the same figure for inward investment to the United Kingdom as was quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). The coincidence between these figures should come as no surprise, because in an open economic society there is likely to be movement to and fro which broadly balances year in, year out.
There is unhappiness about the large part that multinational companies play in


investment in this country. The American figure represents about 10 per cent. of our economy. But periodically we are guilty of hypocrisy. We resent the global figure of 10 per cent. because that confers power, but we welcome investment in our constituencies by individual companies who provide jobs. I am not suggesting that one should be in favour of the export of capital per se. I am in favour of maintaining an open society in which capital can move freely between societies.
I follow my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and for Chichester in their observations about the benefits and predicaments caused by foreign investment. If I were a manufacturer of bicycles, there would come a time when either markets in the Third world would be closed to me or the country concerned would say that I must build a plant and make the product in that country rather than export from the United Kingdom. It would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face to turn round and say that one would not put a plant in that country because the climate was against investment of that kind.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West that a large amount of investment goes into developed countries rather than developing countries. But I ask the House to be conscious of the considerable benefits in terms of the transfer of technology which flows from foreign operations in countries such as the United States. British management can pick up knowledge by being involved in such operations. It is significant how many chairmen and managing directors of British companies, whether domestic or multinational, have experienced a substantial period of being rotated through such companies at some stage in their careers. They are better managers as a consequence.
I want to deal with the argument about invisibles. There is a permanent historical and economic debate about whether trade follows the flag or the flag follows trade. I have worked in international trade for 15 years. I am talking of service firms which are spread across the world and which generate substantial income for this country on the backs of customers whom they first secured in the United Kingdom. A company which starts off in the United Kingdom and then goes

abroad provides an opportunity for service firms to follow it and spread trade across the world.
The Government are pessimistic and defensive. I am proud that the City of London, with Governments of both colours and under the leadership of the Bank of England, has maintained an open society—although it is hindered by the weakness of sterling and the currency. I am proud that the contribution which the City of London has made to the invisibles of this country has been so impressive and is growing so rapidly as a consequence of that stance and policy.

Mr. Loyden: The amendment also relates to the question of matters that the Commission would have a duty to regard. So far in this debate, the Opposition have given no indication of their concern about a major problem for British industry. The intervention that I made was to establish the direction of the argument about innovations in Britain and the need to develop them. One of our problems has been the inability of British capital, for whatever reasons, to find its way into industries that require it in order to develop innovations that are very much a part of British industrial life.
Every one in this Chamber knows that there have been numerous occasions in the recent past when Members defending constituency positions have argued against the closure of a factory or against the movement of work from Britain to countries such as Spain, where there is a positive advantage for the capitalist in a higher degree of exploitation of a labour force in another country. That has been the main motivation. To try to disguise that fact with an argument that this means that we are depriving other parts of the world in need of our technology is a load of hypocrisy and cant.
In this country we have seen industries in which technology and innovations have been brought forward. Some hon. Members have evidently not studied these matters. Innovations do not necessarily take place only in the universities. There are people on the shop floors of factories in Britain who are as capable—in many cases more capable—of developing innovations that will benefit British industry as anyone else, if they are given the freedom to do so. The Lucas presentation, which took on board the question


of innovations such as railroad vehicles, the development of kidney machines and the diversification of the industry, has been disregarded by management. Certainly there has been no indication of management support and finance for that sort of ingenuity which exists in the British worker.
I completely reject the argument that the amendment will affect the areas of the world that require our technology.
Given the opportunity and the freedom to make decisions about production, our workers will be found to have the greatest expertise in developing and diversifying the industries in which they work. The inhibitions placed upon them are the inhibitions of management and those who control the capital. Therefore, it is non-sense to argue that these things have an effect upon developments that everyone desires should take place in other parts of the world. Indeed, if freedom were given to British workers in the way that I suggest, we should be able to solve many of the problems of the developing countries and to increase their technology and, in turn, to have an exchange of resources which would carry us a lot further along the road to the solution of our present problems.
We have a responsibility towards British industry, and that is why we welcome the clause. I well understand and accept that we cannot close our eyes to the rest of the world, but there is a problem here that requires the Government's attention and a regard for expansion in the United Kingdom. Let me give an example of what expansion in the more generalised sense, can mean. In the GEC factory in Liverpool, on Merseyside, three or four years ago 14,000 people were employed. When Weinstock began the takeover and the GEC-AEI combines——

Mr. Ron. Thomas: Expansion.

Mr. Loyden: Expansion, as my hon. Friend says. It has been continuously argued from the Opposition Benches that if the capitalist classes were given the opportunity of pouring profit into their pockets, they would provide the jobs that workers so desperately need. If that is the case, can someone tell me why, when Weinstock took over GEC and merged it with AEI, 14,000 jobs were reduced to

3,500, with a further 400 redundancies on the way? That is the sort of expansion we can well do without.
1.15 a.m.
It has been a question of takeover and, when takeover takes place, of running down what could be the base for expansion of industry in which we have the possibility of penetrating world markets, instead of which we are transferring capital abroad to establish bases in other countries where there is a higher degree of exploitation than can be enjoyed here.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: Would not my hon. Friend agree that per capita productivity has greatly increased in the industry he has referred to and that unemployment is quite different from productivity?

Mr. Loyden: That has resulted in a loss of £16 per unit of production in cookers. That is the world we have to live in, and it shows the idiocy of the argument about increased per capita production. It is nonsense. Weinstock is laying off 14,000 people because of the loss per cooker of £16. What has been the effect of the so-called expansionist policy as carried out by Weinstock? The result has been that we lost 11,000 jobs on Merseyside and that the factory is producing at a loss of £16 per unit. That is the result of the insane economics of the system in which we live.
I believe that there is a responsibility on the Government and that they are right in bringing forward the amendment. Their responsibility is to industry in the United Kingdom, and the whole mechanism of the Price Commission should be allowed only when it is a matter of development within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I rise to seek enlightenment about what the Government's amendment means. In passing, may I say that it is some time since I took part in a debate on prices legislation and I had forgotten what nonsense it is. Looking at Clause 2, it is hard to imagine a worse piece of legislation. It would be a good example for a textbook and is a succession of potentially impossible value judgments which have to be made by the pathetic Price Commission.
Those judgments can presumably be taken to court. We remember the example of Tameside, where Ministers


thought that the power to deal reasonably gave an absolute power to say what was right and what was wrong. We remember what happened to Ministers there, and no doubt it could happen to the Price Commission in the same way. How will it come to a judgment of what is relevant? These judgments are subjective and meaningless.
I would first reiterate a point made by a number of my hon. Friends that it is nonsensical to argue that activities overseas are in some way harmful. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) suggested that it was bad thing that we allowed work to be done overseas when it could be done at home. Some things cannot be done at home.
In the mining industry, there are certain minerals which one cannot take out of the ground in Britain. I suppose that the hon. Member would disapprove of such activities abroad, regardless of the fact that they can make a great deal of money for this country and do a great deal for the balance of payments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) pointed out, there is a contradiction between what is permitted under the amendment and what is permitted under paragraph (h). How will this pathetic Commission and the courts, make up their minds whether to follow paragraph (c) or paragraph (h)? We are really talking about Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense.
But, somehow or other, we have to distinguish between an element in a price devoted to innovation at home and expansion overseas. How does one do that? How does one look at the price of goods and say "So much of the price is concerned with the new factory that we are planning to set up in Yorkshire, Bristol or wherever it is and so much is to go to set up a new plant in Australia, Canada, South Africa or the West Indies"? How on earth can we possibly make that kind of judgment? It is complete and utter rubbish.
As I said at the beginning, I do not know what the amendment means. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester made an extremely able speech, but I have a faint suspicion that he may have been wrong in his interpretation of the amendment. The trouble is that we are faced with a peculiarly sloppy and nasty piece

of drafting. The least the Minister can do is to go back and gently reprimand the parliamentary draftsmen for the way in which they have handled this part of the Bill.
The problem relates to commas. If the amendment is accepted, paragraph (c)(ii) would read:
to provide money for—
comma—
and to encourage the promotion of—
comma—
innovations and technical improvements in—
there should be a comma there—
and the expansion in the United Kingdom of".
There should be another comma there. If those two commas were inserted, it would become slightly easier to understand what the whole thing was about. The point I am making, and the point on which I am inclined to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, is that I believe that the words "in the United Kingdom" apply only to "expansion" and do not apply to "innovations and technical improvements ".
The Minister nods. I am pleased to see that I have the quality of mind of a first-rate parliamentary draftsman and that I understand these things very well. I am flattered to have a ministerial nod. But how on earth do we draw the distinction and say that it is all right to innovate overseas but wrong to expand overseas? If some great new plan or scheme involves new technology, it is perfectly permissible. The Price Commission will think that it is a splendid thing to do. What makes it wrong is if it entails expansion as well. In that case it is very bad. It is damaging to the British worker in Bristol or Merseyside and it is not acceptable to the Government.
How is this crazy Price Commission to make up its mind whether a piece of overseas activity is desirable innovation or undesirable expansion? If a company took the matter to court, as it might well do because considerable sums of money are at stake, how on earth could the courts make up their mind whether something was desirable innovation or undesirable expansion? I say to the Minister that this is absolute rubbish and that he should withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Tebbit: I was a little puzzled by my hon. Friend's comments about undesirable expansion, because paragraph (h) reads:
the need to increase the share of United Kingdom enterprises in markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere".
That is even more confusing because British companies are enjoined to expand their markets but, of course, without investing any money, because that would be very wicked and wrong.

Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one more example of the complete and utter dottiness of this legislation.

Mr. Younger: The Government's amendment does not have a single friend among those who have spoken, except for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and the hon. Member for Bristol North-West (Mr. Thomas). They expressed their views sincerely, but the doctrines which those views encompass, if put forward seriously in the country, would condemn the whole industrial setup to an inevitable slow and steady decline. This would mean a continual loss of employment as far ahead as we can look.
It would have been bad enough if the amendment had been put down by a Back Bencher. It is quite terrifying that the Government felt able to put down an amendment like this. It is economically illiterate. Only a member of the Government who was not looking at Government policy in the round, as a whole and without consulting his colleagues could possibly have tabled it in the first place. If the Minister is honest, he will admit—not here, perhaps, but at another time in another place—that the amendment does not intend to achieve anything practical or concrete.
The amendment is a gesture made by a weak Government to those who make their life a misery. For this reason the gesture is contemptible, and it is gravely damaging because of the attitude it displays. That attitude is one of hostility to the whole concept of international trade.
One cannot isolate international trade and on the one hand say that the country is happy to have firms here from overseas, making jobs and setting up economic activity and technology, yet on the other hand legislate in small and petty

ways to try to prevent British companies from doing the same thing in reverse elsewhere.
I think of the time when I had responsibility for industry in Scotland under the previous Conservative Government, to which I was proud to belong. I wonder where we would have been without the thousands of jobs provided by companies that have come to Scotland attracted from overseas. At that time, something like 30,000 to 40,000 jobs were provided by these companies. I challenge the Minister, who also represents a Scottish constituency, to tell us what on earth the unemployment figures in Scotland would be if there were no foreign investment by multinational companies. The figures would be even more horrific than they are now and have been for the past year or two. The Minister knows it, and he knows that this is a petty amendment that is designed to discourage an attitude in companies that will lead to investment and the provision of jobs.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I do not read into the amendment that the Government are trying to prevent British firms from investing overseas. I wish that there were much stronger regulations to prevent the outflow of capital. The Government are simply saying that the British consumer should not have to pay increased prices for this capital investment overseas. Anyway, I ask the hon. Member how it is possible for the Price Commission to monitor this. If a company says that it spends £10 million, £20 million or £30 million overseas and it increases its prices by 10 or 20 per cent., how the dickens can the Price Commission begin to monitor that situation?

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is impossible to monitor. This is depressing news for Ministers because they are not even pleasing those whom the amendment is supposed to please. It is supposed to please those Labour Members who create alarm and despondency concerning the idea of British firms expanding and investing overseas. Those hon. Members are not satisfied because they can see that this will not achieve anything. This' gesture, which is aimed at pleasing people


such as the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, has failed.
I wonder whether the Minister has consulted his colleagues. Has he, for example, consulted the right hon. Lady the Minister of State for Overseas Development? It is Government policy to encourage British trade and aid to the Third world? The right hon. Lady travels around constantly encouraging that policy. The Government's White Paper "An Account of the British Aid Programme", published a year or two ago, takes pride in the fact that the United Kingdom is a large-scale investor in the developing world and underlines the fact that the contribution of private investment to the flow of resources to the Third world is very considerable. Therefore, the right hon. Lady's Department must be looking askance at this petty provision which is designed to discourage British firms from investing overseas.
I believe that there is no logic in this provision. It does not even please those Left-wing Labour Members whom it was designed to please. It displays an attitude that is liable to discourage the whole concept of freedom in international trade, because the only way in which industry can be successful and expansionist is by having the broadest possible base for development.
In a period of unemployment, a large international company is moving into my constituency right now and will produce hundreds of much-needed jobs. My area has an unemployment rate of 10 per cent, and that work will be greatly welcomed. The firm to which I refer is Digital Computers and it has been attracted to Scotland. What would have happened if domestic legislation in the United States had contained a similar provision to that which we are now discussing?

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: It does.

Mr. Younger: That is not correct. Firms in the United States are encouraged to invest all over the world, because United States industry knows that the way to have a prosperous, successful and well-provided industry at home is to have the widest possible international base for its activities so that there is the maximum opportunity for the use of technology

for development at home and the maximum outlet for those activities.
I know that some Labour Members consider these matters in their own ways and that they have their prejudices, but unless they appreciate these considerations they will condemn their constituents, and the industries in which they work to an inevitable slow decline. Our industry will bleed to death if it is not allowed to play its part.

Mr. Loyden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a firm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) was prohibited from selling machinery in this country because of the fact that the sole supplier was its parent company in the United States? Does he not consider that to fall within the kind of restrictions which he says do not exist?

Mr. Younger: With respect, that is an entirely different point.
I conclude by making a point that should appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who represents the area of Caithness, and Sutherland—very nearly the same part of the world from which I come. I refer to the effects on our economy of North Sea oil. Many considerations are involved but I want to mention only one of them that is relevant.
One of the benefits that we can receive from North Sea oil—if we exploit it correctly—is that we shall become world leaders in the technology of extracting oil from these difficult conditions in the North Sea and from great depths. Long after our own resources have been exploited, we shall be able to expand our companies, with their wealth of experience, into locations overseas where there will be similar activities in the future, in ever more technically difficult conditions and areas.
That is an actual case in which the attitude of the amendment will militate against those possibilities. In its small way the amendment goes out of its way to discourage expansion and to prevent—for the purposes of this legislation—the sort of expenditure that will need to be made in expanding the activities of British companies in the North Sea oil industry into other areas overseas where similar activities may take place in the future. It is a direct illustration. There


are many more such examples, but we cannot discuss them all now, as well as many other opportunities that we cannot foresee.
This small and petty-minded attitude of thinking that one can build a fortress wall around this country is preventing our companies from expanding overseas because, superficially, an odd job or two may be lost when the expansion first takes place. In the long term, it bleeds a company to death because it cannot keep up with the whole trend and worldwide activities of the industry.
The amendment is bad and it is disgraceful that the Government should have produced it. I do not believe that Ministers have discussed it with the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Overseas Development or even the Department of Industry. The Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for producing such an economically illiterate amendment—even at 2 a.m.—and I hope that they will have the grace to admit this and withdraw it.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: This is a necessary amendment and I and most of my hon. Friends welcome it. When I listen to the Opposition talking about British industry, I cannot understand what factories they have visited. The Opposition are, of course, knowledgeable about the City of London and know all about the institutions there. Indeed, they spend most of their time there. Of course, there are also farmers in the Opposition, but when we start talking about manufacturing industry it is clear that most of the Opposition have never visited a factory.

Mr. Younger: As one who, unfortunately, has nothing to do with the City of London, I take that as a compliment, because the City earns more by way of the balance of payments for this country than many other industries added together.

Mr. Loyden: That is absolute nonsense. I am pleased to hear that one hon. Member opposite is not connected with the City. That makes a change.

Mr. Hoyle: The one thing that Tories do not know about and are not connected with is manufacturing industry. They do not go into factories. Indeed, from the statements that they have made tonight it

is clear that they do not do so. From what they say, one would imagine that British industry is now modern, expanding and full of technical innovations. Quite the reverse is true of the many factories that I have visited recently—and I have visited quite a few.
The type of freedom under which companies have been operating, particularly at times when the Tories have been in office, has meant that investment has been going overseas. The consequence of that is that we have fallen far behind our competitors. If we visit our factories now, we see outworn machine tools and a need for modernisation, and we also see ourselves falling far behind developing nations. It is highly necessary that we should be talking about the amendment. We want expansion here, but the Conservatives want to see it overseas. They are not concerned about where the employment is created. That is the difference between the two sides of the House. Profits is the name of their game.
Here we return to the City of London. It does not matter to the City whether goods are made here. They could be made elsewhere if labour costs were a bit lower there. Only the other day I was in a factory where television tubes are made, and I was told that expansion might take place in Taiwan instead of in this country. It does not matter to the multinational company. Wherever the profit is the greatest, there it will go. Whenever I talk to trade unionists from the developing world, I tell them that the multinational company gives them no safety. [Interruption.] Let the Opposition be educated. They are being taken out of their City offices for a while. [Interruption.]

Mr. Sedgemore: We are seeing the Opposition's public school manners.

Mr. Hoyle: A multinational company may build a factory in a developing country, but if it can find somewhere else with labour that is a little cheaper it will move there. Therefore, there is no protection for labour in the developing country.
By the amendment, we seek to answer that the technical innovation and expansion will occur in this country, where we shall benefit. Far more than most of the other developed nations, we have a tendency to build factories overseas rather


than to export. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows full well the unemployment that has resulted in his constituency and on Merseyside generally. Companies have left because they are no longer profitable, as the expansion and modernisation have not occurred there. My hon. Friend mentioned GEC.
The same thing is happening in North-East Lancashire, but the Opposition do not care. They are here only to defend their friends, particularly multinational companies. They are not concerned about the people of this country, except at election times.

Mr. Tebbit: I am deeply impressed by the hon. Gentleman's humanity and concern. The only thing that puzzles me is why he continues to give his loyal and devoted support to a Government who have more than doubled the number of people out of work in this country in the past three years.

Mr. Hoyle: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman puts that proposition forward. I know that he believes in private enterprise, free competition and laissez-faire. I know that he is a great supporter of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). If the Conservatives were in power, unemployment would be not 1½ million but more than 3 million.
Everything must find its own level. If all the capital departs overseas, we shall eventually find our own level. Our real concern—and I well understand that the Opposition are not at their best at this time of the morning—should be to see that investment, technical innovations and expansion occur here.
I congratulate the Minister on the amendment.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is making a most attractive speech, but will he bear in mind the point acknowledged by the Minister that this has nothing to do with innovation and concerns only expansion? Whenever the hon. Gentleman talks about innovation overseas, he should remember that this can still go on.

Mr. Hoyle: Of course we are concerned about expansion here and the fact that jobs should be created here.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on an amendment that will do the sort of things that we all want to see, that will create expansion here and provide new jobs, and that will, we hope, lead to less capital flowing overseas.

Mr. Moate: We have just heard a fascinating exposition of the internationalism of Socialism. I am disappointed that no Liberal Member is here. The Government may be prepared to enter into rather scruffy horse-trading with its left wing to import an amendment that is highly restrictive and damaging to our international position, but I am surprised that the Liberals will presumably vote with the Government, as they have done all night.
The Liberals used to say that they would not stay in the House after midnight—they argued that they would turn into pumpkins after the witching hour had struck—but with the new Lib-Lab coalition they will stay and vote blindly with the Government—and "blindly" will be the word if they support this amendment. It introduces an important principle that is in conflict with our international obligations and with the declared aim of the Government and Labour Members below the Gangway to expand investment in underdeveloped countries, and it is in conflict with our obligations in the EEC.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said about the way the Minister introduced the amendment. It was deplorable. Hon. Members may not agree with our arguments, but they will agree that we have demonstrated that this is a matter of considerable importance. The Minister introduced the amendment in about 30 seconds and gave hardly any explanation. It was grossly discourteous and disgraceful. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about the assumption that we all understand the whole of the Committee proceedings and that the Report stage is regarded as a cosy extension of the Committee, so that there is no need to make a proper presentation of the case for an amendment. In this instance it was the Minister who was discourteous to the House. I hope that he will make amends by giving us a full reply. Surely he has some extremely important matters to answer.
I hope that the Secretary of State had the good grace to feel embarrassed at some of the things that he heard from his hon. Friends below the Gangway. It would be interesting to know whether he agreed with any of their remarks. Did he agree with their diatribes against the multinationals? Did he agree with the attacks that were made against American investment in the United Kingdom? As he is supporting the amendment, presumably he is agreed that we should actively be discouraging investment in the European Economic Community. Is he actively trying to discourage investment in the underdeveloped countries? Perhaps at some stage we might even be honoured by a reply from the right hon. Gentleman. Surely we should know his views.
What is the position in respect of the EEC? As is well known, I was and remain an opponent of membership of the Community. However, I do not necessarily agree with Labour Members below the Gangway that this is a time to be bashing our heads against brick walls in futile exercises in respect of the Community.
I did not agree with the argument against the EEC to the effect that there would be a possible outflow of capital from this country to the Community. If there is such an outflow and if investment grows more in Europe than here, that is merely a reflection of our economic performance. If we see more investment on the Continent than in the United Kingdom, that is a reflection of the type of Government that we have had in the past three years and of the economic climate that the Government have produced.
We cannot artificially pen our capital and investment in the United Kingdom. The Common Market is right in its free trading arguments. We should want to see as much free movement of capital investment as possible.

Mr. Loyden: If it is true that the outflow of capital from this country reflects the inefficiency of British industry, how can the hon. Member square that argument with the flow of capital from the United States, which by implication he must accept as being in similar circumstances reflecting the inefficiency of American industry?

Mr. Moate: I only wish that the cause and effect were the same. One of the significant reasons for an outflow of British capital is this sort of Bill. It is this type of nonsensical restriction that is driving business to invest abroad instead of investing in the United Kingdom.
There is a strong case for the freest possible movement of capital across frontiers. I understood that to be a fundamental principle of the Community. I understood that the Secretary of State was one of the most passionate supporters of membership, yet he is advocating an amendment that introduces a positive act of discrimination against capital investment by British companies in Europe. It may be that the amendment is in legal conflict with our membership of the Community. However, I am sure that investigations have been made and that they have not produced the result that it is improper in that sense.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) is with us. He is another passionate supporter of the Community. I was seeking to ascertain whether the Liberal Party will support the amendment, which seems to introduce an act of discrimination against the Community and against the underdeveloped world. As the Liberals have been following the arguments closely and avidly, no doubt they will exercise their wisdom and vote with us. I cannot believe that they will support the Government on this occasion.
Labour Members below the Gangway were somewhat worried when mention was made of the underdeveloped world. Their answer was that not enough money was going into the underdeveloped countries. They say that only a small percentage of overseas investment goes to the underdeveloped world. That may be right, but is it not their case that it should be more? Is there not agreement that we want to encourage as much private investment in the underdeveloped world as we can? Here, however, we have a positive act of discrimination against it.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that British companies should be given a completely free hand to invest as much as they like overseas and charge it to the consumer? We are talking about whether they should be


allowed to increase their prices to pay for expansion overseas. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is the most effective way of helping the underdeveloped countries? The Government are doing it in a far more effective way through the Ministry of Overseas Development and not by appealing in the hope that a larger amount of the £2,000 million that went overseas last year would go to the underdeveloped countries if the private firms could put up their prices to do so.

Mr. Moate: I wonder what answer the hon. Gentleman would receive if he asked the underdeveloped countries whether they would appreciate more private investment. Their answer would be that they would appreciate more investment of the kind of which we are talking. The hon. Gentleman will discourage it by means of the amendment. It is all very well for the Secretary of State to shake his head. He does not like what I am saying. How can we expect companies to survive if they cannot charge prices that reflect the cost of borrowing the capital that is required for expansion? It will be a deterrent to their continuing to invest abroad.
There has been an argument about whether the amendment is workable and practical. There is a strong point here. I can see great problems arising in deciding within a company to what extent its general borrowing powers have been exercised in favour of expansion in the United Kingdom or abroad. That is a matter of technicalities. I find the principle obnoxious in this instance. The expression of the appalling, reactionary approach of members of the Tribune Group to the economic argument is remarkable. They are the true reactionaries. They argue for the preservation of every outdated factory and piece of machinery, when they are determined to maintain overmanning levels.

Mr. Hoyle: My point was that our industry was out of date because capital had flowed overseas and investment has not occurred in this country.

Mr. Moate: We are all concerned about the creation of wealth. We are anxious to see first-class working conditions, high wages and a greater level of investment in British industry. If the hon. Gentleman seeks to maintain every

job, every factory and all the old equipment, as he argued earlier, he will destroy wealth and not create it. His argument in favour of putting a tight wall around this country and preventing international and multinational investment would be destructive of jobs and damaging to the consumer.
We were asked whether we ever visited factories. I can think of a few factories in my constituency. I am sure that nearly all hon. Members visit factories in their constituencies regularly. Let us not compete in that regard.
I think of a major private enterprise steelworks in my constituency which employs 800 people and which is backed by Canadian capital and, a mojor pharmaceutical company which employs 400 to 500 people and is backed by American capital. About 600 people are employed in an electrical components factory which is financed by German capital. I can think of dozens of companies in my constituency which were initiated by overseas capital or are parts of multinational companies. I wonder what reaction the hon. Gentleman would get if he told his trade union colleagues that we do not want those companies here. Their employees get generally getter working conditions, industrial relations and wages than people working in our older industries.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: Just now the hon. Gentleman said that capital was rushing out of Britain. Now he is giving us a catalogue of foreign capital coming in. It is very strange.

Mr. Moate: It was the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) who said that the amendment was needed because of a massive outflow of capital. I said that if there was an outflow it was due to the Government's appalling record. Investment here by multinational companies benefits the British people and it works both ways. Many British companies have invested in the ways that the amendment seeks to deter. They have bought and taken over businesses abroad, helping to ensure a more secure market for British exports. The arguments of Labour Members are totally damaging to British workers and consumers and to wealth creation. They prove the old definition of Socialism that it is concerned with the redistribution of poverty.

Mr. Tim Smith: With his perpetual obsession with charging everything to the consumer, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) might be de scribed as the Severn bore. He said that we were not concerned about the consumer. On Amendment No. 4, I declared my interest as the secretary of an engineering company who had dealt with the Price Commission. I might also have declared my interest as a consumer, along with all those I work with and all my constituents. It is because the Government have consistently misled consumers about prices that I stand here at all, because the consumers of Ashfield returned me. The Government have never told the truth about prices since 1974, when the Chancellor said that the annual rate of increase was 8·4 per cent.
Since every forecast since then has been optimistic, people have become cynical. They do not believe anyone who says that he has a magic formula for reducing price rises. They look for some other protection, but they do not get it from the Labour Party. The ordinary consumer would probably say that the Price Commission has had no effect, and he would therefore doubt the effectiveness of these proposals.
The amendment epitomises the negative attitude of some Labour Members towards industrial expansion. They complain about the failure of British industry to invest but they fail to understand that in the final analysis it is not incentives or restrictions that will make companies invest.
We grant incentives to companies in many forms. First, all companies are given 100 per cent. writing-down allowances if they invest in new capital and, indeed, second-hand plant and equipment. In addition, cash grants are made to companies in intermediate and other assisted areas. Under stage 5 of the present code there are incentives for investment. A certain percentage of the relevant investment can be charged as an addition in calculating price increases.
Government bodies encourage investment. The National Research Development Corporation, to give one example out of many, is in the embarrassing position of having large sums of which it cannot dispose. Although the terms on which it is prepared to lend the money are

generous, it cannot persuade industrialists that the climate is right for investment.
I wish that some of my constituents could have heard the objectionable remarks about Opposition Members made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle). I was astonished. I knew that Labour Members had their heads buried in the sand, but I did not realise that some were completely covered. The hon. Gentleman said that we did not visit factories and that we were concerned only with the City of London. My company has factories all over the United Kingdom. In the last four months I have visited Glasgow, Aberdeen, Grangemouth, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Newport, Brierley Hill, Stratford-on-Avon, Stoke Newinglon and other places in the South-East. 1 have visited many industrial locations as well as the factories and mines in my constituency. Therefore, I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
On the positive side, there are grants and incentives. On the negative side, there are restrictions on outward investment through exchange control arrangements and in other ways. The amendment attempts further to restrict outward investment. None of these incentives or restrictions determines the amount of investment in the United Kingdom. Such investment is based on the judgment of individual managers in industry, and that judgment is not influenced to any great extent by the various incentives which are available.
We must make it worth while for industrialists to invest in this country rather than overseas. If we provide opportunities for a reasonable return on capital employed, the amendment will be unnecessary. In the meantime, we must reject it.

Mr. Tebbit: I have one or two points to put to the Minister. I hope that on this occasion he will manage to stagger to his feet and lean on the Dispatch Box long enough to answer the debate instead of expecting the House to submit again to his total discourtesy, ineptness and lack of ability to make any case for his amendments.
It comes as no surprise to us that the Minister is one of the least competent performers in his Department—and, my


goodness, that is saying a great deal—even when supported by the intellectual wing below the Gangway. I suggest that he might tell us whether Her Majesty's Government still welcome inward investment. He can even make a sign now one way or the other to indicate whether they do, but he does not. Perhaps he is waiting for a note from the civil servants in the Box to tell him whether the Government welcome it or for one of his intellectual colleagues below the Gangway to tell him. It is clear that he is in doubt whether the Government welcome inward investment into the United Kingdom.
It is totally unreasonable for the Government to make out that it is wicked for British companies to make sufficient profit in the United Kingdom to invest outwards overseas and at the same time to make out, as they seem to do from time to time, although the Under-Secretary does not yet know, that they welcome inward investment from overseas. That must be inward investment which is financed out of profits made out of consumers in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has reinforced the intellectual wing. I welcome the addition of the hon. Member's intellectual superiority to those who have been trying to make the case for the Government this evening. That is by no means praising him.
The Under-Secretary of State might tell us whether multinational companies are welcome in this country. Any outsider listening to or reading the debate would have to assume that the British Government are bitterly opposed to multinational companies. That must be presumed from the general theme of the debate from the Government Benches, if the Benches below the Gangway are Government Benches. It is hard to tell these days because the situation is so confusing. There are Government Benches behind me with Liberal Members sitting on them and Opposition Benches on the Government side with Labour Members sitting on them.
Despite the theme of the debate, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster goes on one of his trips to the United

States one hears whispers that the Government welcome these companies to this country. Who is speaking for the Government—the Minister or the supporters of the Government? The Minister does not wish to say anything. Presumably he does not want to upset those who might loosely be called his supporters. With supporters like that, I hope he never gets a hernia.
How does this amendment, which the Minister has moved but has not exactly recommended to the House, fit in with Clause 2(2)(h)? There is a reference in that to
the need to increase the share of United Kingdom enterprises in markets in the United Kingdom and elsewhere".
"Elsewhere" must mean abroad. I do not see how any other construction can be put on that. Presumably, even hon. Members below the Gangway and the Minister will latch on to this.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It is simple.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Walton suggests that it is simple. It may be, but the Minister has to convince me if he is to get my vote. After all, that is what these debates are supposed to be about. The Minister is supposed to make a case. Perhaps some of us are a little simple. That is the luck of the draw in the parliamentary business. If that is so, we need a better-quality Minister to put the arguments.
How on earth is a company in the United Kingdom to increase its share of the market overseas unless it is allowed to generate profits in the United Kingdom that are sufficient to finance investment overseas? In the original draft of the Bill, the Government's intention was contained in paragraph (h). Now to be stuck in at the behest of the so-called intellectuals is this inane amendment which prevents British companies from doing what they are enjoined to do in that paragraph.
There might be a case for stopping British industries from investing overseas. The Minister might be able to make it. I do not know. But there cannot be a case for telling industries not to invest overseas and to increase their share of business overseas. The two things are incompatible.
2.15 a.m.
The Minister has got himself hooked through crawling to either the intellectuals below the Gangway or the Government in exile behind me, on the Liberal Bench. I do not know whether this was the Liberals' amendment. It is daft enough, so it might be theirs. I was not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee. I do not know whether the amendment has Liberal support. We have not heard anything from them as to whether they support it. Presumably they have not been instructed by the Government Whips, so they do not yet know whether they support it.
The Minister cannot seriously expect to have both these injunctions in the Bill. Let us look at some of the things that will happen if this silly amendment goes into the Bill. Let us consider the construction industry. Here I shall engage the interest of the hon. Member for Walton. Like me, he is very interested in these matters.
It is appropriate that I should declare the fact that I have a financial interest in the construction industry. The state of that industry in the United Kingdom has been caused by the recession that the Government have engineered. Unemployment in it has more than doubled in the last three years. That recession must be unknown to Labour Members below the Gangway, because they are against unemployment although they support the Government who cause it, so they clearly have not heard about it. Because of the vast recession that the Government have created, the construction industry has had to turn its attention to engaging in business overseas. It has had no other choice. It could have either shut down or gone into the export business. It went into the export business.
How has the industry financed its export business and the contracts into which it has entered overseas? It has done it out of the profits that it has made in the United Kingdom. But that is now what it is specifically supposed not to do. It is said that it is a very wicked thing to use United Kingdom profits, from consumers, to go overseas and make profits overseas, improve the balance of payments, regenerate the industry, regenerate capital, expand the business and provide jobs in Saudi Arabia, Germany, Italy, the Oman and many other places to

which the unemployed building workers of Britain can go and get jobs that they are denied in Great Britain by Her Majesty's Government. According to the Minister, that is very wicked and must not be done.
Then one has to look at an industry in which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) is interested—so I am told. That is the aircraft industry. Let us consider one of the major deals that has been done in that industry over recent years, the tripartite deal between the British Aircraft Corporation—which will be continued now by the nationalised industry—Britten-Norman Limited and the Romanian industry.
This has been a very complex agreement. In essence, what has happened is that the profits of one company have been fed out into the Romanian industry and a deal has been made so that, as BAC sold BAC111 aircraft into Romania, the Romanian industry would construct Britten-Norman aircraft for repurchase by the British industry and subsequent export in many cases.
Many thousands of jobs have been involved in the deal. It is a very complex arrangement. However, I am willing to bet that an element of the profits that have been made by BAC and Britten-Norman Limited has been used to finance part of this expansion in Romania, and, indeed, in a similar sort of deal in the Philippines too. Both are underdeveloped areas. There is nothing more underdeveloped than a Communist country, as we all know. This generates new jobs back in Britain, with expansion of British industry. If those deals had not been done, there would be no BAC111 line now on which to build that future.
That is the sort of deal that the Minister now says is wicked and immoral because it rests on profits generated in the United Kingdom being used elsewhere. It is the sort of deal to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne objects because, in his fantastic and fairy-tale world, the workers in Romania—Romania of all places—are robbing the chaps in Britain of jobs; but they are not. They are helping to create jobs and to create wealth. I, by no means a Communist, as the House knows,


welcome the fact that the British capitalism is able to generate work in a Communist country and to improve the standard of living there, and that it is enabled in turn to improve the standard of living in Great Britain as well, because that is part of the pattern of international trade in which the profits of one country's enterprise are invested in another.
How ridiculous it would be to tie the Bill down a little more tightly and say that it would be wicked if the profits earned by industry in the constituency of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne were used to be invested in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas). Clearly, people would say that that is crazy—or would they? I suppose that some of them are sufficiently crazy to think it a sensible idea and that the profits earned in Nelson and Colne should be used to protect the jobs there. We all know that it would not do that. That is the kind of restrictive attitude of those who think that we can build a well-run country and can survive without trading with the rest of the world, or, alternatively, that the rest of the world is so anxious to trade with us that it will climb any mountain or get over any wall to get into our market, however clapped out and run down this country had become.
Lastly, I take up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faver-sham (Mr. Moate). Is this provision compatible with the letter or the spirit of the Treaty of Rome? There was a day when the Secretary of State used to believe in the European ideal. There was a day when he was a member of a Cabinet which was committed, believe it or not, to Britain staying in Europe. He is still in the same Cabinet, but the Cabinet is not committed any more and we wonder to what extent the right hon. Gentleman has a commitment when we look at his friends.
Is this compatible with the free move ment of capital throughout Europe? I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us about this. I do not mind if he comes to the Dispatch Box and says "There is a narrow technicality on which we can reckon that this just gets by the Treaty of Rome." [Interruption.] The intellectual wing is at it again. It is bursting with ebullience. [Interruption.]
Perhaps we have two intellectual wings. It is hard to know which is which. I would not mind if the House would just shut up for a moment.
I do not mind if the Secretary of State comes to the Dispatch Box and says" I have founnd a neat little legal quibble to get this through the Treaty of Rome." I should like to know even more whether the Secretary of State thinks that this provision is compatible with the sort of ideals he used to profess when he was active in propounding British membership of the European Community before he found it possible to coexist with, to cohabit with, the other members of the Cabinet, and with the deputy-leader of his party, who are bitterly opposed to his own Government's policy.

Mr. Maclennan: This has been a long and wide-ranging debate and has gone further than I anticipated when I opened it briefly.
A number of hon. Members have referred to their lack of knowledge of what was discussed in Committee. A number of hon. Members have also recognised that the amendment has been put forward in response to a debate in Committee. It has been put forward in response to undertakings to consider points made seriously in Committee that it was desirable that the Price Commission, in exercising its duty, should have particular regard to the financial needs of companies expanding in the United Kingdom. It was never asserted, and the point has been made clear tonight by a number of my hon. Friends, that foreign investment was in any way undesirable. My hon. Friends simply wish to emphasise the desirability of companies in this country having the potential to expand here. No one would seriously argue that there is no need to expand industry in this country.
Opposition Members who have built up a substantial argument at some length on this modest amendment overlook the most important aspect of the clause, which is that the Commission, in exercising its functions, is required to have regard to all matters which appear to it to be relevant. That, of course, includes the possibility that investment overseas may generate requirements which companies may freely advance as a reason for increasing their prices. There is, however, a clear distinction concerning matters


which the Bill provides ought to be particularly regarded by the Price Commission. Expansion of domestic investment is obviously one of them. I think that this is merely a point of clarification and no more than that. It is clarification of the original intention of the Bill.

Mr. Neubert: Mr. Neubert  rose——

Mr. Maclennan: I have many points to answer and it has been a long debate. I might well cover the hon. Gentleman's point by the time I complete my speech.
The amendment which I have recommended to the House, and which I hope the House will approve, does not brand overseas investment as undesirable. What it does do is avoid any presupposition that overseas investment should be funded or subsidised from price increases imposed on British consumers. That is a fair point. There is no discouragement of trade. Indeed, this is specifically protected in paragraph (h), to which a number of hon. Members have referred. Investment for export production can still be cited in support of price increases, just as it can be cited at present under the investment relief provisions of the existing Price Code.

Mr. Tebbit: If a company charged lower prices overseas than in the United Kingdom for the same product, would that in general be taken as evidence that it was financing its overseas expansion out of the profits of its United Kingdom sales and, therefore, that it was acting contrary to the injunctions of the clause?

Mr. Maclennan: That sounds at first blush as if it would be illegal under the dumping provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. But the hon. Gentleman clearly wants to tempt me down pathways that are well beyond the scope of the provisions that we are considering tonight. As we have had such a long and extensive debate, it would be wrong of me to detain the House any further.

Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry that the Minister did not feel it necessary to give a better answer than the one he has just given. This has been a very serious debate on a very serious subject. Although my hon. Friends have made points in an amusing manner, they have nevertheless made telling points. Any objective observer must come to the conclusion

that the amendment has been completely and utterly savaged and destroyed.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Raison: Did not the Minister refuse to give way on the ground that he had a lot of points to answer? He then sat down in the most gutless and contemptible way I have ever seen.

Mr. Parkinson: The truth is that this is a foolish and shabby amendment. At the beginning of his interesting intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) asked why the Government had introduced it. There are two reasons. First, they had to satisfy the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and his colleagues who hate foreigners and anything to do with places described in the Bill as "elsewhere". They simply cannot bear to have anything to do with those people, or investment or trading with them.
Secondly, the Secretary of State is an ambitious man and he is anxious to keep in with that lot. This shabby amendment is a sop to the Lef wing. We know what to make of the Government, but I wonder where that leaves the Liberal Party. Are Liberal Members seriously supporting the Government in their shabby little amendment? I understand the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), whose world begins and ends at the borders of Rochdale, but what about those Liberal Members who actually think before they speak and act responsibly from time to time? Are they really happy to be living with this lot? Are they happy with the amendment?
The Liberal Party is the great believer in internationalism and the EEC. Is it really saying that companies which use their profits, generated here, to invest overseas are doing something disreputable and should be stopped? Is this what the Liberal Party has come to as a result of the Lib-Lab pact? Does the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who understands business and trade, really believe that British companies investing overseas are doing something to damage the interests of British workers? He knows full well, as does the Minister, the advantages of overseas investment to British workers.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The aircraft manufacturing industry was once in my constituency. My constituents


would be delighted to have it manufacturing back on the Isle of Wight instead of in Belgium and Romania, where it has gone.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member should have listened more carefully to the arguments of my hon. Friends about loss of jobs in an area. In Weybridge an important export line has been reopened, with growing opportunities for jobs in this country. Now we find that the Liberal Party does not think any farther than the Isle of Wight. Anything that is not good for the Isle of Wight is not good for Britain. That is extraordinary.

Mr. Tebbit: I am surprised that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is unaware that, while the Britten-Norman company has been saved by the Belgian factory and the Romanian operation after failure on the Isle of Wight, there is every prospect, if all goes well, of restarting production as well as fitting out aircraft in the Isle of Wight. He seems to be ignorant of the fact.

Mr. Parkinson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents in the Isle of Wight will notice that by supporting the amendment he has done his best to sabotage that possibility.
The Liberal Party talks a great deal about its interest in the Third World, and Labour Members often make the point that not enough resources go to the Third world. The amounts may be small but they are significant. By supporting these provisions, however, the Liberal Party will make that effort more difficult.

Mr. Rhodes James: My hon. Friend will no doubt recall that when, on 13th June, we had a full day's debate on overseas development—a distinguished debate—the absence of Liberal Members was conspicuous. Indeed, not one Liberal Member was present. Incidentally, we lacked even the presence of the Labour intellectuals below the Gangway.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The hon. Member for Rochdale is well suited to be lined up with that mob opposite, but some of his hon. Friends are better than that and deserve better. They should be ashamed of themselves if they support this shabby little amend-

ment. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 222.

[For Division List No. 162 see c. 1611]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 13, after "promoted", insert
either because certain suppliers control a substantial share of the relevant market or for any other reason".
I hope that these words will be added to the Bill at the wish of all sides of the House. That would be a welcome, if small, token of a prospect of stability and continuity of policy for British industry, which is intensely nervous at every prospect of political upheaval in this country, as is registered on the Stock Exchange every time the Government's majority appears to be in danger.
The Liberal Party takes the view that legislation by criteria in this matter is greatly preferable to the rather unsuccessful legislation based on a code that the country has suffered for some years. The price to be paid in having a rather heavier top hamper of a Price Commission which will have to use some discretion rather than operate an automatic, tedious and elaborate code is well worth paying. I hope that we shall not hear much more from hon. Members who are understandably a bit miffed at the distinguished roll call of captains of private enterprise that the Government have managed to acquire. Those hon. Members should stop complaining that a Commission working by discretion has to have such a distinguished team at the top. This is a modest price to pay. If one is working on the basis of a gramophone record, one needs only a gramophone. This operation requires a whole orchestra, and the price is well worth paying.
Turning to the criteria, I echo the lavish compliments paid to them by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). As these robust canons of enlightened commercial policy, expressed in unusually muscular prose for a statute, were unfolded to my noble Friend and myself by


a representative of the Government, we felt that we could not have done very much better ourselves. The criteria are admirable. Nevertheless, we regard criterion (f) in its present form as somewhat abstract. There must be many in the country who, having grown up under successive Governments, do not really know what competition means. We think that the word should be defined and illustrated for the benefit of industry.
More seriously, it is of the utmost importance—I am sure that this view is felt on both sides of the House—that industry should know as far as possible where it stands from the first without having to wait for the Commission to establish a rhythm of activity. We believe that by importing these words into criterion (f) the businesses that know that they are not sharing in an outstanding slice of the market and industries which know that they are working in a competitive climate will have nothing to fear and nothing to bother about from the Bill. That is the situation that we want to achieve. We want as many businesses as possible to feel entirely confident that they have nothing to fear from the statute. We believe that by introducing these words they will be reassured to some extent.
The purpose of a measure of this sort is not primarily to guard against profiteering. The Liberal Party has never regarded profiteering as the most unfortunate consequence of a monopoly. We fear inefficiency, stagnation and the lack of enterprise that comes from a monopoly. We regard those as the worst evils.
We believe that these few words will reinforce the criteria, which are themselves an excellent definition of a genuine and flourishing mixed economy. We hope that the House will agree to their addition.

Mr. Hattersley: This is one of the amendments that relates to what I believe to be common ground on both sides of the House among hon. Members who wish to see a relationship between the central power of the Bill to initiate inquiries, and possibly impose a freeze, and the competitive policies that exist or should exist or should be improved.
We anticipate that the investigation and freeze powers, in both the short term and long term, will be used in areas

where the market is far from perfectly competitive and where unreasonable and, by some standards, unnatural profit is the result of the market's condition and the exclusion from the market of competitors who might come in and push down profit levels and price levels to their proper marginal form.
It was always the intention of those who drafted the Bill that it should meet the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). I would argue that the hon. Gentleman's points are covered by implication. The hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 2(2)(f), which relates specifically to competition. It was our intention that his points on market shares should be embraced in the clause.
The weakness of the hon. Gentleman's points stem from the fact that they are covered by implication. Their strength is that it is better to be precise than to cover obliquely. As the hon. Gentleman puts into words what we were implying in the clause, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Before indicating whether we fully endorse what the Secretary of State is seeking, I take up two of the points that have been made. First, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to comment further on why he thinks that the amendment will clarify the issue. The words that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) proposes to add to the criteria are as loose in describing "any other reason" as being allied to the issue of competition. Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman accepts the words that the hon. Gentleman proposes, does he not agree that they require a much more accurate definition to be applied to what is
a substantial share of the relevant market
or what is to be a cause of genuine competition?
One of the consistent features of the discussion on the criteria is that where there has been a case for introducing a monopoly trigger we have argued that there should be some sort of surveillance mechanism that could provide the intray, as it were, for a Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry. During yesterday afternoon we were asking about the position that would arise if the Price Commission were to be used as a quasi


Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We were anxious to establish from the Secretary of State clear guidance as to when he might see the monopoly and merger rôle of the new Commission taking shape to a point where he felt that those powers should be transferred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It was that, in part, which led us to move Amendment No. 1 and to suggest that the Price Commission should have a short and finite life limited to 1980.
3.0 a.m.
If the Secretary of State accepts the Liberal amendment, it must be because he believes the monopoly role to be important. We agree. Equally, if he wishes to see competition more clearly defined, he must prepare for the Commission to be given much more sharp guidelines than are at present available as to how it should act in these circumstances.
If the Minister believes the monopoly role and the surveillance of competition to be important, why does he not come clean on the issue of when these powers should be divested into the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? We accept that the forces of competition are the main way in which the consumer gets good value for money and the way in which prices will be best restrained. We cannot easily argue that that is best achieved by a Commission whose major force and mechanism is that of the imposed price freeze.
If the Secretary of State wants to encourage acceptance for this proposal on all sides of the House, he must recognise that there must be a long-term strategic view that the monopoly and merger role is significantly more important than one involving permanent price-freeze powers.
Those are the main arguments which, we have insisted all along, are relevant to a contribution to the economic well-being of the people.

Mr. David Price: I am at one with the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and the Secretary of State on the emphasis on competition policy. Yesterday we had a slight exchange at Question Time. The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) asked the Minister what he was doing to promote consumer protection. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) is not with us as he asked questions about consumers earlier in this debate.
Yesterday I said:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that so far the best method that has been found of protecting the consumer is by ensuring that there is genuine competition in each product and service sector, and that the greatest problem is where there is not, for various reasons, genuine competition?
The Minister of State replied:
Yes, but we are trying to encourage genuine competition and the Price Commission Bill, when enacted, will add bite to the competitive edge."—[Official Report, 20th June 1977; Vol. 993, c. 866, 867.]
That leads me to ask whether there is not a danger of a complete overlap between the scope of the Price Commission under this Bill and that of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Where does all this fit in with restrictive practices legislation?
Formerly, when in office as Undersecretary of State for Trade, I always supported anything to strengthen the power of competition. I am not so simple, nor are any of my hon. Friends, as to believe that competition happens naturally. Rules must be provided both administratively and, preferably, legally to ensure that the competition is maintained.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West read us lectures on economics. If he would study the works of Adam Smith, the position would be clear to him. [Laughter.] I notice the horse laugh. If the hon. Gentleman had read "The Wealth of Nations", he would know that that makes the position clear. This is relevant to the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. That book makes it clear that active policies are needed to maintain competitive markets. There is a natural propensity of producers to gang up to the disadvantage of consumers. I welcome anything that adds to competition policy. There is a grave danger of there being a misunderstanding or even a misapplication of effort in this difficult area between the Price Commission and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
The difficulty with the first leg of the argument of the hon. Member for Colne Valley, not only here but in other countries, is the definition of "substantial share" and of "relevant market", geographically and in terms of product. Some elegant equations have been


worked out, particularly on product substitution. Relevant considerations are what is a similar product and at what stage a market changes because a product is dissimilar. For instance, the makers of Guinness claim that it is a unique product. Most people would say that it was a stout and that if there were competition from other stouts Guinness should not have a monopoly. The manufacturers of stout would regard it as separate from beer, but others would maintain that beer was the relevant market because the two are sufficiently similar. These are important considerations in the real world, and the hon. Member for Colne Valley did not tell us how they would be solved.
What does the phrase "any other reasons" mean in the amendment? And what does the phrase "or cannot be promoted" mean in the clause? Are the Government thinking of a statutory monopoly like a water undertaking? What do they mean by the words
where competition must be restricted"?
Is there some natural reason for this? Who says that something should be restricted when the whole purpose is not restriction but encouragement? This is probably our last opportunity to know what those phrases mean.

Mr. Rhodes James: As the Bill progresses, the air of unreality becomes worse. I am new to this business, but I have now heard a Member from the Liberal Party dedicate himself to private enterprise and competition, shackled to a party which is vehemently opposed to both and which has produced a Bill which is a monstrosity against private enterprise. The hon. Member then produced an amendment which made even greater rubbish of an already bad clause in the worst-drafted Bill I have even seen. I give as an example the following quotation:
if the report relates to an increase, a recommendation by the Commission as to whether the price to which the increase relates, as increased by the increase or part of it without the increase, should not be increased".
That is a fair sample.
The hon. Member referred also to the splendid orchestra which is being created and the incredible sacrifice of the chairman, who will take a mere £18,000 a year to be of service to the nation. This

figure appears to be quite common. It may seem small to the Press and to Ministers, but it is a large amount to the vast majority of people in this country and to me. The whole concept of public service that we used to have, when people made genuine sacrifices—not dropping to the minimum poverty line of £18,000, being described as an orchestra and having friends working part-time on £13,000 a year—appears to have gone.
I find the Liberal Party's performance astonishing. We are dealing with an amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). If, in the course of my remarks——

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman made a direct assault in what he says I said. Does he recall at any stage in my remarks any reference, either directly or obliquely, to sacrifices? I assure him that I did not touch on that point at all.

Mr. Rhodes James: The hon. Gentleman clearly referred to how fortunate we were to have this wonderful orchestra——

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Yes.

Mr. Rhodes James: —which was to be of such service to us. I have no wish to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, but he warmly endorsed these appointments which are paid for by the taxpayer.
The Bill is riddled with errors, fallacies and weaknesses. In marked contrast, the hon. Member for Colne Valley has introduced an amendment which finishes with the magical words
or for any other reason".
How is that part of the Bill to be interpreted, how is the Bill as a whole to be interpreted and how, indeed, is the—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who mutters and heckles away in the background did not serve on the Committee for several weeks and endeavour to make sense of the Bill. Again and again, sensible and fair amendments moved by the Opposition were rejected—and rejected without argument, just as has happened in the House tonight. We spent hour after hour putting arguments to Ministers, and they did not bother to reply. The Government's handling of the Bill has been a persistent and insistent insult to the intelligence and capacity of the House. [Interruption.] It is nice to get some reaction from Labour Members,


particularly those below the Gangway, who were so evident in the debate on overseas investment and other major matters.
I come back to the hon. Member for Colne Valley. What is he doing associating with that lot? What is he doing associating with a Government who go against everything for which the Liberal Party stands? Perhaps the answer to the dilemma will soon be found at certain by-elections. Perhaps the answer will be found when Liberal Party supporters ask themselves what their 13 MPs are doing producing a feeble, gutless amendment which does nothing in particular and then falling over themselves being grateful to the Secretary of State when he wakes up and makes a rare intervention indicating that he accepts their miserable amendment. The day of reckoning will certainly come. Meanwhile, this wretched Bill must proceed. I suppose that technically the amendment has to be accepted, but the right hon. Gentleman will hear from us again.

Mr. Neubert: It is not without significance and will not have escaped the attention of my hon. Friends that the first intervention by the Secretary of State on Report, after 11 hours, is to come to the Dispatch Box to welcome an innocuous amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) on behalf of the Liberal Party. It is a pathetic and shabby set-up which should be exposed for what it is. Those of my hon. Friends who, in good faith, have argued the matter as a serious issue have merely allowed themselves to play parts in this pathetic play acting which passes for the Lib-Lab pact.
3.15 p.m.
Did hon. Members notice that, when introducing the amendment, the hon. Member for Colne Valley happened to mention in passing that he and his noble Friend had met the Minister and had discussions about it? The tremendous privilege confered upon the Liberal Party is that Members from it should from time to time meet the Minister, no doubt in the privacy of his private room. As a result of that meeting, the hon. Member for Colne Valley comes forward with an amendment which seeks to elucidate an otherwise complex clause which states
the need to safeguard the interests of users of goods and services by promoting com-

petition between suppliers or, where competition must be restricted or cannot be promoted, by restricting prices and charges".
Nobody on this side of the House would have guessed that that relates to monopolies. It could not possibly do that, so the hon. Member does the House a service by bringing forward an amendment which makes it clear to us that the clause actually relates to a monopoly situation.
Obviously the hon. Member deserves our thanks for that. He will go down in history as someone who has contributed greatly to the prosperity of the country. However, those of us who have sat here for 11 hours are bewildered because the same Minister could not accept the insertion of the single word "all" to make the clause clearer. But as soon as a dozen or so words are moved by a Member from the Liberal Party they are accepted, although they add nothing to our understanding of the provision. This is part of the cornucopia of the Lib-Lab pact. It is a shabby business.
We should like to know the other reasons for accepting the amendment. The words "for any other reason" are almost as vague as the words "and elsewhere" which we discussed earlier. Let us have no posturing as if great matters are being decided at 3.15 a.m. Of course they are not. If the hon. Member for Colne Valley is satisfied with the play acting, no doubt we shall hear Ministers conceding these matters, but to us it is, frankly, nauseating.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Of course we support the amendment. Unlike Liberal Members, if we see merit in an amendment we support it. That is the difference between us. However, the amendment comes under the category of amendments which can be described as very, very, very marginally better than nothing. It is certainly not an amendment that we should have liked to see in the Bill. We should have liked an amendment to provide that the Commission should first and foremost have regard to the extent to which normal market forces control the price of goods or charges for services. That should be the primary criterion.
We believe that only to the extent that competition is blunted or does not exist should the Commission have regard to the other criteria in Clause 2. The


amendment is incidental to other more important points because it provides that this should be only one of the criteria. We should like to see this as the chief criterion to guide the Commission to its fully-fledged anti-monopoly stage. If this were to be the main criterion instead of merely an incidental one, the interests of consumers would be very well served indeed, and, at the same time, business and industry would be freed from a great deal of unnecessary intervention, except in the context in which it should be legitimately applied.
As long as a company is subject to the full effects of vigorous competition, there is no justification for subjecting it to other controls, to investigations, to freezes or to anything else, because in a fully competitive situation—which does not always exist today in Britain; that is far from being the case—the likelihood of excessive profits being made is very small indeed. If the Minister does not think that that is so, if he can give me examples of companies which are being subjected to full competition and are making excess profits, whether or not they have an advantageous position under the Price Code, I should be very interested to hear of them.
I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) say that he did not regard profiteering as the worst abuse of a monopoly position. That was very interesting because that is a concept that we were trying to inject into the Bill with our first amendment. We feel that the sooner the powers in the Bill which deal with monopoly abuse are vested in institutions such as the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the sooner they can operate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Speak to the Chair."] I am trying very hard not to delay the House. I shall have to try a little harder.
We have heard contradictory arguments from the Liberal Party and from the Government about the new-found importance they place on competition policy. We never heard a word about competition policy or about competition when they were nationalising this and that. Suddenly they have to produce a Bill, which is very doubtful from the

start, as some new measure of competition policy when that was very much an afterthought as far as the Bill was concerned.
Of course, we on the Opposition side of the House were very deeply touched by the Secretary of State's kind endorsement of the Liberal amendment. After all the talk of orchestras, I strained my ears very hard and I could have sworn that I heard the strains of "Hearts and Flowers" being played somewhere in the distance. Then I said to myself "No, it must be the lateness of the hour."
My hon. Friend for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) raised the really important question. It is something on which we should like to see an amendment of this nature touching. It is not touched anywhere in the criteria in the Bill or the amendment. That is the question of what is genuine competition. The amendment will allow the Price Commission, or later the Monopolies and Mergers Commission or the Office of Fair Trading, to look into certain situtions where a monopoly situation exists. I belive that very often that will be too late and that sometimes an early warning system will be necessary for these investigations. Once a monopoly has grown up, it is very often too late for anyone to do anything about it.
Therefore, I would have hoped that one of the criteria in relation to these investigations would be to survey with an early warning procedure the near-monopoly situation that is likely to grow into a monopoly situation. That would have had a great deal more value than the amendment. The amendment does no harm, but we should have liked to see it going a great deal further than it does.
It is notable, too, that the Minister of State, who so often speaks about Price Commission reports—he mentioned the report on spectacles, I think, and the report on television rental sets is a favourite—[Interruption.] The supranational conglomerate from the Government Benches has left the Chamber for a few moments, otherwise my new business partner would have shown himself. Unfortunately, I shall have to wait for that pleasure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that he is keeping in good form. If we are to enter into this partnership, I hope that he will be ready and willing. For the edification of hon. Members, may I say that we are going into the spectacle business.
There was a Price Commission report on intruder alarms. It was an interesting report and it was not mentioned by the Minister of State in his apologies for not accepting our amendments. The report revealed what appeared to be abuse of competition by insurance companies who operate only a few burglar alarm providers. That means that people have only a limited freedom of choice. I mentioned this to the Minister of State privately, and his reply was that powers exist in the Fair Trading Act—

Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Lady must remember some kind of convention about private conversation. If she is going to indulge in quotation from private conversations, what will happen is that whenever I have a private conversation I shall have to bring a secretary to record it in order to protect myself. The hon. Lady should remember some of the conventions of the House.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I do not believe that that conversation was discreditable on the Minister of State's part. It is quite normal. I asked him what action could be taken and he told me that powers existed in the Fair Trading Act. I was giving the House the benefit of that opinion, which I consider a fair opinion and in no way discreditable. I am in no way criticising the Minister of State by telling the House of the possibilities which exist.
As we look at competition policy in this country, it will be seen that over and over again the Conservative Party has been the forerunner in introducing anti-monopoly policy. We shall continue to be in that position in the not-too-distant future. In the meantime, this amendment is not enough. If the Minister had accepted an amendment from us in Committee, an amendment which went a good deal further, we should have felt more satisfied.
I would have liked the Government to go further and to have seen the Price Commission's powers in 1978, when the pay policy runs out, limited only to monopoly.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It has run out now.

Mrs. Oppenheim: If my hon. Friend says "Why not now?" he is perfectly right. It shows great tolerance to say

that this is acceptable in phase 3 when we do not know what that will be. He is right to make that remark.
We think it right and proper for some of the powers to be used in the context of providing a basis for upholding competition in pricing practice and for looking into the near-monopoly situations which have a potential to grow quickly into monopoly situations and to become greatly out of control.
We have no grounds on which to object to the amendment. My regret is that the Liberal Party did not use its influence with the Government so that it might have gone a little further and injected an amendment of infinitely more value than this.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: It is gratifying when, on an industrial matter, a modest amendment like this is supported by both Front Benches and by the hon. Members for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) and for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), both of whom have much industrial experience.
In the light of that happy fact, I do not want to dwell on the extraordinary divisions in the Conservative ranks revealed in the different sorts of speeches which have been made. Those who mocked at the form of words proposed overlooked the fact that I never claimed that this was a tremendous thing. I said it was modest. I never claimed that this was the vegetable marrow of the harvest festival.
There is in the Bill at least one exhibit which deserves a prominent place on the harvest table. It illustrates a genuinely productive harmony—I do not know how long it will last—to receive from the Labour Government a Bill which uses the words:
the need to earn … profits which provide a return on the capital employed in producing the profits which is sufficient … to defray the cost of the capital (including compensation for the risk involved in producing the profits)".
That seems a splendid product from this situation, and it is something that we are glad to endorse.
3.30 a.m.
To turn to the amendment itself, I was surprised that some hon. Members, including one with great experience of the mechanics of the House before he was elected an hon. Member, overlooked the


fact that it is necessary to read an amendment in the context into which it is to be inserted. The words in my amendment do not stand alone. That would be ridiculous. They stand as an admitted illustration, or partial definition only, of promoting competition. Therefore, in those circumstances it is surely not only reasonable but proper that our definition, having stated the points about people who
control a substantial share of the relevant market",
must go on to include the supplementary few word
or for any other reason".
In the absence of that, it would be quite apparent to the House, even at this hour, that had we stopped with the words
a substantial share of the relevant market
we would have been presuming to make an exclusive definition of the term "competition". That would clearly have been wrong. It is inevitable and very necessary in a statute that we should make clear that there are other forms of competition which have to be provided for. In view of the acceptance of the amendment, I need not detain the House any longer.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): It is necessary for me to first put the Question on the outstanding amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of moving this motion.
We have had very long but, I believe, constructive debates so far. They may have been less long had we met with a different attitude from the Government both in Committee and in the proceedings so far on Report. At the outset the Government would not accept our amendment, which was a reasonable and moderate one. They went on to move their own extremely controversial amendment in a highly arbitrary manner and in a way that was likely to incense the

House. These are some of the factors that have prolonged the debates on some of the amendments.
I do not believe that the debates have been unduly long. They have been constructive. We have had just over 11½ hours of debate and we have dealt with seven out of 37 amendments. That means that we have still a long way to go. I cannot help feeling that the Government have been pig-headed and have gravely underestimated the House in believing that 37 amendments with 33 Divisions, which they knew perfectly well would be the case, could possibly be provided for in a day and a half. It was surely ridiculous to think that the Bill could be considered in that time. One and a half days is a ridiculous amount of time to allot to that number of amendments and Divisions.
I understand that the Finance Bill Committee has now adjourned. That is another reason why we should have adjourned now. Many hon. Members have been sitting for a long time considering the Finance Bill in great detail, but they are perfectly willing to come and join this debate and to swell our throng. I think that it would be in the interests of the House, however, and in the interests of this Report stage if hon. Members were given the opportunity of refreshing their minds before proceeding further with the Bill. It is absurd to think that we shall make any progress towards any sort of timetable at this rate. Things being what they are, it is likely that proceedings will move not faster but slower from now on. That is the normal way things go in the House. It is not unreasonable to request an adjournment at this time of the morning. Many people all over the world would think it absurd that we should sit for so many hours without a break of any sort.
I congratulate my hon. Friends who have taken part so far. They have all played a constructive part and have done a great service, not only to the Opposition, but to the whole House. I should like to think that we could proceed with the Report stage at a reasonable hour tomorrow, and by adjourning now we could do so with refreshed minds and could maintain the standard of debate.
Labour Members who scoff should look at the Amendment Paper and they would see that the amendments moved by parties


other than the Conservatives far outnumber ours. We have not been attempting to obstruct the Report stage. We did not do so in Committee—the Secretary of State has acknowledged that—and we have no intention of obstructing the Report stage now.
However, we need to debate the amendments very fully. We were far from satisfied in Committee about all the amendments on which there was a tied vote, and we feel that there is a need to press the arguments a good deal further. I am not threatening the Government; I am simply stating what is required for the remainder of the Report stage.
It is reasonable to ask the House to adjourn now. Labour Members have been joining in the debates quite freely. I am glad that they have done so. But let it not be said that we have monopolised the debates in any way or acted in a way in which the Labour Party would act in Opposition. I think that for the most part Labour Members would like to accept that this is a very reasonable moment for the House to adjourn.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course, I accept the hon. Lady's explanation when she talks about progress being slower from now on. That is her judgment rather than a threat to the Government.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying at the outset that had the Government's attitude been different much faster progress would have been made. She has been very frank in saying that. It is not something that I would have said. She admitted, however, that had the Government been prepared to accept the original wrecking amendment the Conservatives would have let the Bill progress very quickly.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose——

Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall not give way just yet. However, the Government were not prepared to accept that amendment and, therefore, we are detained late. Now I shall give way.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It is a small point. I just want to put the record straight and say that one of the causes of the slow progress has been the arbitrary way in which Ministers have answered debates and moved their amendments.

Mr. Hattersley: That is so, but the record will show that the hon. Lady began by saying that if we had accepted the first amendment things would have been different. We did not accept that amendment and we have been detained here during the night—and it may be that we shall be detained here for a very long time.
The Opposition will accept, as will my hon. Friends that it is necessary to make progress on the Bill, because if it has not completed all stages by 1st August there will be no prices policy in this country. [Interruption.] I hope that The Times tomorrow will record Opposition cheers at the announcement that after 1st August there may be no prices policy. Since my hon. Friends and I are determined that there will be some price restraint, we must proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Adley: The right hon. Gentleman will lose his hon. Friends soon because they will all be off on the picket lines.

Mr. Hattersley: I have no doubt that in seeking to make progress at this time of the morning the Government will suffer more inconvenience than will the Opposition. However, during that inconvenience we are reassured by two consolations. The first is that by Thursday or Friday the fact will be abroad that the Opposition have kept up the House of Commons for two nights, or perhaps more, in fighting against any sort of price control. That will be a useful subject for some weekend speeches. Secondly, although I have read in some newspapers, including The Times, that the Government are not at present able to command events in the House of Commons, I think that by the end of a week the Government will have got a controversial Bill through the House of Commons and will have nailed that lie in the process. I hope that my hon. Friends will resist the motion.

Mr. Baker: I support the motion with complete and utter enthusiasm.
We have now been debating the Bill on Report for the better part of 12 hours. As the Secretary of State said, some of the debates have been very interesting. They have, as always is the case on Report, been uneven—some better than others. What has been totally consistent has been the inadequacy of ministerial replies. Indeed, the reply made by the Undersecretary of State a short while ago was


the worst reply I have ever heard from any Minister in any Government. Many may jostle for that crown, but when we consider the ministerial team on this Bill and think of the two junior Ministers we can truly say that we have not the first eleven, or indeed, the second eleven but the groundsman and the scorer. To carry the cricket analogy a little further, I suggest that the Secretary of State is the big roller, brought out from time to time to attempt to firm up the pitch. The plain fact is that the Government's replies during the night have been bad and are not likely to get any better. Therefore, the House would be well advised to adjourn now.
The Secretary of State ended his remarks on a characteristic note of defiance. He said that when the Government get their Bill by the end of the week they will be getting through the House a piece of controversial legislation. That is not a fitting remark coming from a Minister in a minority Government—a Government kept in power by whatever majority they can cobble together by throwing sops to the Liberals.
I see the Leader of the Liberal Party present. When he next appears at a Liberal conference, he will be asked what he has to show for this great deal and he will be able to say "Amendment No. 9 to the Price Commission Bill". That is the banner under which the Liberals will march to the promised land.
We have debated for long enough tonight. I hope that we shall now adjourn our proceedings, because if the Secretary of State continues in this way he will find that he will not have his Bill by the end of the week. There are many hours, and if we continue to make the degree of progress during the rest of the week that we have made so far we shall all be here well after Friday lunchtime. It will be a question of whose will will break first.
The Secretary of State should therefore be more sensitive to the feeling of the House. If he had been more sensitive earlier, he would have made better progress tonight. The House would do well to adjourn and meet again tomorrow afternoon.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I rise to support the motion and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the

Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). It is true that I have not contributed to the debate on this long Bill but I have done my best to listen to it.
My concern is rather different from anything that has been mentioned so far, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will be bound to pay attention to my point. Anyone who has listened to our debates today must realise that if matters continue as they have done up to now the debate on the Bill will continue up to and beyond 2.30 p.m. today. I have checked carefully with the Clerks. If that happens we shall lose today's Question Time. I am sure that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to raise matters during Question Time.
There is a limit, in common sense, to the amount of time that should be devoted to the debate. There is a great risk that we shall lose tomorrow's Question Time. I do not wish that to happen for a particular reason—I have Question No. 14 tomorrow. I do not see why I should not admit that. These days it is a considerable achievement to get Question No. 14. If some hon. Members do not know what the Question is I shall enlighten them immediately. I shall ask the Minister for Transport
whether he will now announce the abandonment of plans to nationalise the road haulage and port industries.
I should stress that there is a great deal of uncertainty about the intentions of the Government—if it can be called a Government—for those plans. The scheme was in the famous manifesto with which they bludgeoned and bored us for three years. However, since then matters have changed and the Government's intentions are quite uncertain and opaque. There was relatively little mention of the matter in the consultative document on transport. The country, the industries and those who work in them need a clear answer to the Question. Is it to be lost—

Mr. Russell Kerr: Lorst?

Mr. Hastings: That is the opposite of found. Perhaps it is different in Australia. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will make a speech about it one of these days. That will be the day. Are matters simply to be passed over and ignored because we


are to go drearily on, when anybody who takes an intelligent interest has almost reached the point when he cannot contribute much more?
If there were a great backlog of legislation that this dynamic Government were anxious to bring before the House, one could perhaps understand this frenetic activity in the middle of the night. But that is not so. The major Bills on which we thought we were to be engaged, such as those on European Parliament elections and devolution, have been put off to the next Session. What are we to do between now and the end of July? If we are to be kept here all night it would be much better if the Government told us what they intend to do from now on. What is the hurry?
There must be Labour Members with Questions that they want answered today, or do they just put them down for fun? Are they happy to sit and listen to these endless arguments? The risk of losing Question Time is real. I cannot conceive that in a sensible mood the House would fail to support the motion.

Mr. Tebbit: The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) for moving the motion. The principal cause for our gratitude should be that the motion got the Secretary of State to his feet to make one of the longer speeches by a Minister tonight. It was a reasonably average speech by the standard of the Treasury Bench tonight, which is a bit rough. Three amendments were dealt with in ministerial speeches of one minute, one minute and two minutes respectively. Those were speeches on substantive amendments, including one of the Liberal amendments. One minute may have been too long to spend on that.
There is great interest in the motion. All the Liberals here are intent on making their speeches. I hope that they all catch the eye of the Chair when they manage to get up off their backsides and that they will say something intelligent instead of yah-booing.
The Secretary of State managed to make a speech of four minutes, four times as long as he spent on the Liberal amendment. It was a much better speech than most of those made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because at least the

right hon. Gentleman was not failing to read properly from a tatty brief. That perhaps indicated the contempt with which Ministers have treated the House in general. They have made no serious attempt to reply to any of the debates.
We have had the ludicrous situation of the Under-Secretary saying that he could not give way because he had so many points to make yet, within a minute at the most, he had sat down. Perhaps he had lost his piece of paper or maybe the Secretary of State put him out of his misery by pinching it from the Dispatch Box. Either way, it was not the most elegant performance of even the Under-Secretary's time in the House.
We are now threatened that if we adjourn, the word will go out across the country that the Opposition are preventing the British people from having the benefits of a prices Bill. Anyone would think that inflation had been controlled in this country in the past few years. The Government's prices policy has led to the pound now being worth 55 pence after three years of this Administration. It may be that there could be worse circumstances, for example if the bunch below the Gangway opposite took office instead of operating the puppet strings.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: The hon. Gentleman has said that the pound is worth only 55 pence. I am quite willing to give him 55 pence for every pound that he has.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to do a deal on the basis of the pound's purchasing power in, say, 1970 or on the basis of gold——

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman was caught out. He should admit it.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) wish to make a speech?

Mr. Fernyhough: If an hon. Member is caught out in the House, he admits it. The hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue and should accept courteously and in a gentlemanly manner the offer of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton).

Mr. Tebbit: It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to put it so nicely, but does he dispute that what the pound


was worth in 1974 is only 55 pence in today's purchasing power? This is a consequence of pricing policy and three years of this Government. If the right hon. Gentleman did not have a better contribution to make, I am surprised that he took so much trouble to lever himself to his feet.
It is understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should have had so much trouble getting to his feet because 4 a.m. is ridiculous time to be attempting to give serious consideration to important matters of Government policy. Is there any other legislature that would attempt to deal with Government policies at 4 a.m.?

Mr. Cyril Smith: I suggest that the hon. Member should put in his speech, for the record, the disgraceful behaviour in which he is indulging. It is 4 a.m. and he is deliberately filibustering and wasting time in order to keep out of bed those hon. Members who, he claims, want to go to bed. The hon. Gentleman stands there in sheer hypocrisy pretending that he is a saint, anxious to get the House up and to get the business through. At the same time, we have all this rubbish in a speech that he is making deliberately for the purpose of wasting the time of the House.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If Labour Members will relax for a moment—[Interruption.] Their friend the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), their partner in the coalition, is getting a little out of hand. I can understand that the hon. Gentleman would like to go to bed. I should like to see the bed that he could get into. To suggest that I am filibustering is totally outrageous. Had I been filibustering—

Mr. Cyril Smith: It is true and you know it.

Mr. Tebbit: If I had been filibustering, the Chair would have called me to order. To suggest that I have been getting away with filibustering without the Chair calling me to order is a slur on the Chair.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It is true.

Mr. Tebbit: That suggestion calls for the hon. Gentleman to apologise to the Chair.

Mr. Cyril Smith: You know it is true.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall be happy to give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make an apology.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Carry on with your nonsense.

Mr. Tebbit: At least the hon. Gentleman and I are agreed that it is no use attempting to deal with legislation at this time of night. If we have to discuss anything, we might just as well discuss the proposal to go home. At least that is a fairly innocuous proposal. That would call for no great judgment of State. It is suggested that we can deal with matters so complicated that the Minister does not understand them. That is obviously the position. If it were not so, we should not have been given replies of such a character. At this time of night it is absurd to continue our discussions on the Bill.
As I have said on previous occasions, it is a clearly established fact in industry throughout the world that at about this hour there is a far greater chance of industrial accidents than at any other time of day. It seems that if we are to avoid that danger it would be much better if we chucked in our hands, ceased dealing with the Bill and went home.
There is yet another reason that he House should adjourn now. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) said, there is the matter of tomorrow's business. We have not quite reached the stage where we shall lose tomorrow's business but we have an interesting motion before us. We are due to have a most important statement from the Secretary of State for Trade during tomorrow's business—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That is an interesting question. The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not to be found on an aeroplane flying between London and America. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the intention of the Secretary of State to make a statement today on the outcome of the Bermuda negotiations. Unless an agreement is reached in precisely one hour's time, that air service will cease between Britain and the United States. Among the extraordinary achievements of the Government will be that they were the first Government for 30 years that managed to stop international air travel between the United Kingdom and the United States.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Now who is filibustering?

Mr. Tebbit: It would be extraordinary if the House were denied the opportunity to hear the Secretary of State explain why that had been done and what arrangements he was to make for travel between the two countries. However, if we continue with our discussions for very much longer that is precisely the danger that we shall face. It might be that our debate on the motion could last sufficiently long to run us into that danger. If we have any more helpful interventions from the hon. Member for Roch-dale, we might manage to make it.

Mr. Cyril Smith: You might have some more.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps he has changed his mind recently.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The hon. Gentleman is not giving us a chance. Sit down and let us get on with it. Give us a chance to vote.

Mr. Tebbit: If the House proceeds in accordance with the way in which it was behaving earlier in these debates, we shall not make a great deal of progress.
The Minister's speeches are a gross contempt. He does not deal with the points that are raised. He just sits there and hopes. If we accept the motion, think of all the benefits that would come to him. To start with, think of the effect on the Government's legislative programme. We should be another day away from the embarrassment which the Secretary of State must endure when the direct elections Bill comes before the House. That is one piece of legislation that he does not want. Very few Government supporters want it. I am not sure whether the Liberal Party still want it. There is little other legislation that the Government want to introduce. The Government make statements about the lack of legislation. Day after day recently Government business has collapsed. There were several occasions recently when there were numbers of Adjournment debates as there was no business to carry on through the normal part of the day.

Mr. Lipton: We want to do business, do we not? I have 65p here. Will you

give me a quid now? Then we may all go home.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure that it is in order for an hon. Member to offer to take bribes to vote for a motion before the House. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I may buy his vote for this motion for £1, that is an interesting proposition. We shall have to think about it. The hon. Gentleman has not told me which way he will vote, whether or not he receives his £1.
Day after day the House had not had enough legislative work to fill in its full day. Government business has collapsed. We have had extra Adjournment debates starting as early as 8 p.m. The Government now suddenly bring this business forward and suggest that the House must carry on through the night. I do not know what is the Government's intention. It would be helpful if we did know. Is it their intention to cease business at 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock? Shall we run straight through? What is the Government's intention?

Mr. Hastings: I have been reflecting on what my hon. Friend said about the Bermuda negotiations and the intention of the Minister of Trade to make a statement on the subject. The continuation of air travel between this country and the United States is at stake. It is no small matter. There are hundreds of thousands of tourists in this country. There are presumably people on both sides of the Atlantic who want to continue flying backwards and forwards. If we are to be left in limbo as a result of this Bill going on and on, with no opportunity for the unfortunate Minister of Trade to explain why there is no further air transport across the Atlantic, we shall be in a proper pickle, to coin a phrase.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is launching forth into a second speech, which is not in order on a dilatory motion. An intervention is different from a speech.

Mr. Hastings: This is my question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must allow his question to remain unasked.

Mr. Tebbit: That is a great pity as I am sure that it would have been an interesting question. I could not make out


whether it was the House or the unfortunate people flying backwards and forwards across the Atlantic who were in limbo. We are still faced with the problem of wanting to know the Government's intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about BALPA?"] The Bermuda Agreement is of interest to BALPA and other unions.

Mr. Femyhough: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will declare his interest in BALPA, in accordance with the custom of the House.

Mr. Tebbit: Except that it costs me a few quid a year to belong, I have no interest in BALPA. What does the right hon. Gentleman think my interest is?

Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman has on many occasions spoken in the House in the interests of BALPA.

Mr. Tebbit: I have spoken in the interests of many things, including kindness to dumb animals, but that does not constitute an interest. Could the right hon. Gentleman be more specific?

Mr. Fernyhough: If someone suggested reducing the wages of British airline pilots I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have nothing to say. I am sure that he is not interested in airline pilots.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman is making my case, that it is very difficult to have a reasonable debate at this hour. I am not sure whether he is filibustering, being funny or feeling confused.
I have an interest in the affairs of the airline pilots, as of any other group. I follow their interests closely because I used to be of that profession and am still a member of the union. I am not and never have been a spokesman for the union, and I do not receive anything to represent its interests.

Mr. Stanley Newens: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is what the hon. Member is saying germane to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gen tleman was challenged about his interest and he is entitled to reply.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not think that it was germane, and I was trying hard to find out what it was about. A satisfactory

debate on a technical Bill is unlikely in these circumstances.

Mr. Peter Rost: Is not the most important reason for passing the motion the fact that the Government may soon lose their majority as a group of Labour Members below the Gangway move off to Willesden?

4.15 a.m.

Mr. Tebbit: One never knows. Some of them may have difficulty in getting back again. The bus services are terribly poor in that part of London. I say that in case anyone should misunderstand me.
In the last few minutes we have clearly established that the House is in no mood to consider serious business. I thought that view prevailed only among some of us on this side of the House, but I have detected a note of tetchiness among Labour Members. It would be under-standable if that tetchiness were directed across the Floor of the House. I am told that such things happen from time to time, although that is not usual in my experience when things are mostly all sweetness and light in the Chamber. But when Labour Members get tetchy with each other and there are disagreements among friends, particularly those below the Gangway who normally stick and sit together, it is very worrying. It indicates that they are not in that properly receptive state of mind to consider an argument on its merits and to discuss and smooth out a few of the rough corners which I am sure they will admit there are here and there in this legislation. Perhaps it is the hour of day.
As I have mentioned before, there is the problem of diurnal rhythms and there are——

Mr. Adley: Before my hon. Friend gets too involved with his rhythms, would he perhaps finish dealing with the point made by the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)—that my hon. Friend's membership of a trade union necessitated a declaration of interest before, during and presumably after he sat down? If we are to understand the position correctly, the Government are pushing this Bill through tonight on the instructions of Mr. Len Murray. Therefore, would my hon. Friend think it right that, following the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Jarrow, every Minister and Labour Member who is a


member of a trade union, let alone a sponsored Member of a trade union, should make a full and clear declaration of that fact before he or she speaks or continues to take any part in this debate?

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has made a valid point which will no doubt have the support of the right hon. Member for Jarrow on future occasions. I think that sometimes these matters are conducted in a somewhat heavy handed sort of way. We perpetually go on about declaring interests, but all, or almost all—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not in his place—are published in a fascinating little book.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House work for outside employers. Indeed, many of us are trade unionists, and there is nothing wrong with that. I always thought that I was a good trade unionist. I have experience of going on strike. My union had a motto about these things. It was generally said that if one did not picket, things would never get better. However, that is not entirely relevant to this discussion.
I was referring to the problem of diurnal rhythms. Those who have experience of matters medical or biological—it might be useful to get the Foreign Secretary here to discuss this matter—will know that all animals, including human beings—and there are some fair specimens of animals among some human beings—operate on a 24-hour cycle within which there are two sub-cycles of 12 hours each which are broadly related to the rising and setting of the sun. One usually reaches a peak of efficiency at about 9 o'clock in the morning and probably at about 9 o'clock in the evening. But of course there are two troughs in one's efficiency. These occur at about 3 o'clock in the morning—

Mr. Clement Freud: Or at about 4.20 a.m.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member has made a point that he has made before. He will realise of course that he is talking about British Summer Time and I am talking about Greenwich Mean Time. Diurnal rhythms are related not to artificial clock times but to Greenwich Mean Time. That is why people who undertake long journeys suffer from jet lag and their efficiency falls.
That is what is happening in the House now. We have what could be described as an outbreak of jet lag. One of the characteristics of jet lag is irrational and rude behaviour. I have seen groups of people suffering from jet lag who behave in a totally disorderly manner. They might not be conscious of it but they do. Of course, it is extremely dangerous to the health.
There is a pattern, not only of more industrial accidents at 3 o'clock in the morning and 3 o'clock in the afternoon but of more death. More people die at 3 o'clock in the morning than at any other time. There is always hope. I suspect that more legislation also dies at this time in the morning.
Unfortunately, after indulging in this irrational and disorderly behaviour people often become bored and gradually stop. One has only to stand here and move one's mouth up and down.

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice on a matter of procedure which might help some of the important points that my hon. Friend has been arguing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] If hon. Members cannot hear I shall begin again. I should like your advice on a matter of procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a risk that some important statements and Questions may be lost because of this debate. We propose an innovation. Could we have Question Time now? That would not be unreasonable. Ministers have to sleep. We could allow them until 5.30 a.m. and then begin Question Time. After that the Secretary of State for Trade could make his statement about the lack of any further air transport across the Atlantic. We could then continue this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Tebbit: It is not a matter for the Chair but it is a matter that we might consider when we are considering this Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House should come to order and proceed with its business.

Mr. Tebbit: I was having a great deal of difficulty in making myself heard. I cannot imagine what has come over the


House, but every now and again there seems to be a little problem with the acoustics.
As I was saying, the problem of diurnal rhythms is serious. I think that it would be generally agreed that there is considerable hazard to health—[Interruption.]

Mr. Walter Clegg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please explain to us why the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) is standing up there, by one of the Benches near the Chair, looking like Hamlet's ghost?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must appeal to the House to proceed with the evening's business. That was not a point of order.

Mr. Tebbit: It would be a very good idea if we could proceed with the evening's business.
Does the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) want to intervene?
It would be a splendid idea if we could get on with the evening's business, but before we can get to the evening's business, we have the day's business before us—probably Question Time and the important statements. Perhaps it would be better if we could take those first. The easiest way to do so would be now to report progress on the Bill and to adjourn the House. We have made quite a bit of progress. It would be a very good thing if we did that.

Mr. John Pardoe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to ask a question of you about your conduct of these debates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It obviously has not come to your notice that on three occasions in the last 10 minutes the hon. Gentleman who is supposed to be addressing the House, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), has been saying nothing at all. Indeed, the hon. Member for Chingford has been on his feet for some considerable periods without saying anything. The only trouble, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was that you did not actually notice it. I therefore wonder whether you intend to conduct these debates in this manner from now on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Deputy Speaker was not aware that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) was not speaking. To the best of my knowledge, he was making his speech. If there was a certain amount of noise from other Benches, that may have been the reason why the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) could not hear him. However, I suggest to the hon. Member for Chingford that the time has come when we should proceed with the business of the House and come to the Question that has been proposed.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 219.

[For Division List No. 163, see c. 1615]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 249.

[For Division List No. 164, see c. 1619]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Bain: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 21, at end insert—
'(i) the need to safeguard employment opportunities particularly in development areas.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
'(e) the function of carrying out, and of preparing a report in consequence of an investigation into the wholesale and retail trades of the reasons for the imbalance of pricing in the various parts of the United Kingdom and in pursuance of such a report of issuing guidelines and recommendations for the eradication of such an imbalance.'

Mrs. Bain: It is with some relief that we reach this stage, as we consider the amendments to be crucial to the implementation of the price code. We are particularly concerned that we should receive considerable support from the House, as the amendments are of great importance


to Scotland. It may be vain of us, but we believe that the last hour was spent in trying to ensure that there would be enough hon. Members left in the House to support us on the amendments, and that the official Opposition were worried that minority parties night disappear should the amendments be reached before the closure.
In Amendment No. 10 we are concerned about the problem of cash flow at the time of implementation of a price freeze. The Secretary of State should examine a situation in which during investigations one measure could be applied at the expense of other criteria. We suggest that employment must be a criterion.
Anyone who has studied today's announcement of the unemployment statistics must be very concerned, as we axe. Scotland, more than half of whose land has special development area status, has 186,218 people unemployed, an increase of 22,000 in the past month. A Written Answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) printed in Hansard on Monday said that in January there were 40,967 young people under the age of 20 unemployed in Scotland, and that 22,411 of them were under 18. We should be very worried if the Government imposed any restriction that would result in a further deterioration in the employment situation.
In considering the amendments we must look at Clause 9, because of the safeguards to be written in there. The Secretary of State did not make clear in Standing Committee exactly what those safeguards should be, but instead chose to make a statement on 27th May, when the House was moving into recess. It would have been useful to those of us on the Standing Committee to have those safeguards made known to us during our debates. In his statement the right hon. Gentleman said:
The safeguard levels will not represent, as the Price Code safeguards have done, the maximum level of profit at which many firms can operate.
5.0 a.m.
Of course, if we are not to allow firms the profit levels that they need to operate, there must be a great deal of doubt whether many companies can continue in operation after a price freeze. We are concerened particularly with the liquidity

problems of small companies that provide considerable employment in development areas such as Scotland.
In the safeguards, the Government recognise that during investigation, the safeguards must relate not only to the product itself, but, even if indirectly, to the circumstances of the enterprise—[Interruption.] It is obvious from the noise that they are making that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are not concerned about the problem of providing new jobs in these areas. I ask the House to endorse the view that employment opportunities must be taken into consideration by the Commission when it institutes an investigation of a price increase.
Amendment No. 12 refers to price variation throughout the United Kingdom. I moved a similar amendment in Committee and I do not apologise for returning to the subject. My concern has not decreased, despite various assurances given by the Minister in Committee.
The Price Commission's report on food prices in outlying areas said:
Food prices in outlying areas are overall somewhat higher than in more central areas. The north of Scotland shows the greatest disparity, being 73 per cent, above typical national prices.
While there are small differences in overall prices and in many outlying areas fresh food can be cheaper because of local conditions, other items, including liquid milk, bread and branded grocery items are much more expensive. People cannot accept that standard goods should cost more in their areas.
One problem is that stores in these areas cannot buy the bulk quantities of goods. This is a problem that the Commission could investigate because many of the special offers for bulk buying militate against the small traders. We believe that they should have the same benefits as the supermarkets.
There are indications that regional variations make prices in Scotland higher and, in addition, the average weekly total household income is lower. According to the 1974 family expenditure survey, the Scots' percentage of average English household income was 95·4 and of house-hold income in the South-East of England it was 85. The percentage of total United Kingdom average household income was


97. It looks as though the Scottish people pay more from lower incomes.
In Committee, the Minister indicated that there was a possibilty of an investigation into this problem and several other hon. Members expressed concern about regional variations in prices not only between Scotland and England but throughout the United Kingdom. We were relieved when the Minister indicated that he would discuss the matter with the Secretary of State and consider the possibility of an investigation, but I have tabled the amendments again because the assurances that we received in Committee were rather vague and I should like to see something more concrete from the Government. I received a letter from the Minister of State who indicated that, instead of pursuing the matter further, I should wait until after 31st July.
In all the circumstances I cannot help feeling that the Department would like me to drop the issue. It hopes that in due course it will go away. Unless the Government can give me a categorical assurance today that they will write in an amendment in another place and that an investigation will take place, I shall have to force the House to have yet another Division. We hope that such a guarantee will be forthcoming. I stress that these issues are extremely important to us in Scotland. Many of us feel that the Government are reneging on all the promises that they made during the election campaign. They have been discredited in virtually every area of policy applicable to Scotland. A positive response from them today would at least redress some of the balance.

Mr. David Mitchell: The effect of the amendment that has been so eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) is to seek to put a duty on the Commission in performing its function to safeguard employment opportunities. Although the amendment also refers to development areas, the hon. Lady and the grammar suggest that it applies to other areas. My constituents, like many others, are deeply concerned about unemployment and the way in which the Bill will make it worse.
Record unemployment figures were announced last night. As the amendment recognises, there is a vital and direct link

between price control and unemployment. That is one subject of grave concern to my right hon. and hon. Friends. If the amendment were passed, it could mitigate to some extent the damage that the Bill as it stands will do to employment.
We are sitting at 5 o'clock in the morning against the background of a Government who announced, according to the Evening Standard yesterday, a level of unemployment of no less than 1,450,055. That is the highest June figure since the war. It has nothing to do with 13 wasted years or anything of that sort. It is 118,000 up on June last year, and over 100,000 up since May this year. Those are appalling figures. They are figures that are accelerating. Unemployment has doubled since the Government took office. The Bill and the activities associated with it are one of the causes of that situation.
I am prepared to bet Labour Members either above or below the Gangway that there will be 1½ million unemployed by August of this year. Are there any takers?

Mr. John Ovenden: It would be 3 million if the hon. Gentleman's party were in power.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I have to say and reads our policy in "The Right Approach", he will find that that will not be the position. I am asking whether any Labour Member is prepared to take my money on there being 1½ million unemployed by August. Is no hon. Gentleman to take my money?

Mr. John Mendelson: It is the school leavers.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman take a bet with me? If not, what about the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore)?

Mr. Sedgemore: I have no money.

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is obviously suffering from the depressed living standards created by the Government. It seems that no Labour Member is prepared to take my money. No one on the Government Benches is prepared to accept my bet. It is against that background that we are debating the amendment.

Mr. William Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that to win a bet he woud be prepared to see more British people unemployed in August than there are now? The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I was deploring the fact that the Government have been such a failure that they have doubled unemployment during the time that they have been in office. I deplore that fact that the school leavers are unemployed. However, it is also the hard core of unemployment that has gone up.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figure of 1½ million unemployed has already been reached and that but for the Government's artificial measures, by which they have pumped £700 million into the economy and created artificial jobs for young people, the figure would already be well over 1½ million?

Mr. Mitchell: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend said. Accepting the Government's figures, in spite of the artificial reduction to which my hon. Friend referred, the hard reality is that unemployment has doubled since the Government took office. The depressing fact is that the hard core of unemployment, which normally goes down in June by about 30,000, went up by 4,362 in the past month alone. Therefore I am not surprised, against that background, that no Government supporter is prepared to take my money on there being 1½ million unemployed by August. If no hon. Gentleman is prepared to take evens, I am prepared to offer them 2 to 1. I notice that there are no takers.
There is a direct link between the level of unemployment and the price controls in the Bill that we are asked to endorse. [Interruption.] There seems to be a debate about unemployment going on between hon. Members below the Gangway, where hon. Gentlemen's consciences are troubled by the disasterous record of their Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. There are far too many sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Mitchell: There is a direct link between unemployment and the price

control measures in the Bill. It destroys confidence and creates uncertainty. Who will invest in a project to create buldings, factories and employment when he does no know with any degree of certainty the price that he will be able to charge for the commodity he makes? He may judge that if the product will command its market price he will be able to build a profitable enterprise, make a return on his money and create employment. If that is the situation he can see his risks and make his judgment. But there is now interposed with this legislation a new uncertainty that the Price Commission will say "No, you may not charge that price even though the market will stand it".
On that basis which board of directors will lay out investment which will create jobs, in view of that uncertainty? If any board of directors even considered doing so it would have before it the Minister's speech on Second Reading when he made it clear that it was an essential qualification for appointment to the Price Commission to have a positive commitment to selective Government intervention in the economy. When it knows that it must come up against that prejudice, a board of directors would be somewhat unusual if it embarked upon an investment project. There is a direct link between this legislation and the destruction of incentives to invest.
5.15 a.m.
The Bill, mitigated I hope by the amendment, will slash the funds available for investment. Business can get its money by borrowing—but it can borrow only to the extent that there has been ploughing back of profits, that is collateral to borrow against, or by going to the Stock Exchange—although that is denied to the small business sector, which creates much employment—or by ploughing back the profits of the previous year's trading. This legislation will make inadequate the ploughing back of profits from previous years, the largest single source of investment for modernisation, expansion and job creation. So the criteria should include the effect on employment.
Recent evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology showed that the greatest obstacle to innovation was not lack of ideas or opportunities but shortage of available capital.


Every pound cut from profits is a pound less for investment. A firm of agricultural engineers recently wrote to the Small Business Bureau which has been collecting evidence about the impact of this sort of legislation:
If we exceed the Price Commission's margins we shall still not be making enough profit to pay any tax at all.
One business man wrote to the Bureau:
Talking to a number of acquaintences and friends in a similar situation to mine, running their own businesses, we are all heartily sick of bureaucracy and feel that maybe we should dispose of our businesses and let the State keep us, as they seem so keen on keeping so many others.
That attitude, unhappily, is growing. Apart from the all-time record number of small businesses going into bankruptcy, the number which have voluntarily gone into liquidation, which have voluntarily given up, has risen by 100 per cent. over the average for 1972–73, the middle of the last Conservative Government.
A third example—practical examples show what we are talking about—is that of a firm which deals in machinery and has been accused by the Price Commission of exceeding its profit limits. Its main line of equipment cost £10,500 in 1974 per unit: the same unit now costs £19,600. The Price Commission's activities will prevent the firm from accumulating enough capital to be able to buy the new equipment it needs in order to deal. It is therefore paying off labour. People are being made unemployed in a situation in which this amendment could have a significant and helpful effect.
I turn to another aspect—the delaying powers which the Government have put into the Bill while an investigation takes place. This has considerable significance in terms of the likely effect on jobs. In this respect I should like to quote the experience of an agricultural feedstuffs manufacturer in or near my constituency. The firm's raw material index went up 26 per cent. between May and December last year. About 85 per cent. of the cost of animal feedstuffs is represented by the imported raw material which is handled. Most of that raw material went up by £19 a ton in the five months between May and October last year. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for

Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who makes quips from below the Gangway, may not be concerned about unemployment. We certainly are. As a Member of a party which has created so much unemployment and being asked to push through legislation which will create even more unemployment, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Molloy: I was attempting to enlighten the hon. Gentleman. He referred to a firm in his constituency which complained that it might go bankrupt because of the high prices that it has to pay for certain raw materials and machinery. I suggest that it might be helped when this Bill is law, because it will not then have to go bankrupt.

Mr. Mitchell: I suppose it is true that the road to hell and mass unemployment is paved with good intentions and a total non-understanding of how the business community works! The firm concerned deals in imported machinery, the prices of which have gone up partly because of the Government's incompetence in managing our currency.
If there is a five-month freeze while an investigation takes place, this agricultural feedstuffs manufacturer tells me that he may have to consider closing more than one of his factories. That ought to make the hon. Member for Ealing, North, who is sitting there so smugly, sit up and think, because that is unemployment being caused as a direct result of this legislation. We are dealing not with a couple of pence in the housewife's purse but the numbers of people who will be unemployed as a result of this legislation.
A major factor which is often overlooked in respect of unemployment and the creation of jobs is the small business sector. The pattern of unemployment today has changed. We have large industry turning out no more production than it did during the three-day week. British industry has an inbuilt factor of a 3 per cent. increase in productivity year by year because of investment and the like. We need an increase in demand in excess of 3 per cent. before we start to take up the slack in productive capacity which is not being used. We have to go a long time before large industry will take on more people.
We shall have to rely on small firms, particularly in the regions—Scotland, Wales and the West country—as the best potential for creating jobs. Where do small firms get their money from to expand and to create jobs? They cannot go to the Stock Exchange. They get their money overwhelmingly from ploughing back the profits of the preceding year.
The Minister may say that this legislation does not apply to very small firms; that prices decided by the market and other competitive factors affect them. That is so. But one competitive factor is that if a large company, trading at a notional break-even point and not making a profit because of this legislation, is under investigation for five months and has to keep its prices at an artificially low level, small firms in the industry will be driven to the wall because their cash flows will not enable them to sustain such a period of operation at an uneconomic level. That is how, bit by bit, unemployment mounts.
I warn Labour Members below the Gangway that during the next six months they will have letters from constituents who have become unemployed as a direct result of this legislation which they will have tramped through the Lobbies to support. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment. At least it may do a little to mitigate the damage being caused by the measure before the House.
Small businesses are cash hungry. Inflation means that they need more money to do the same volume of business and more money to carry the same volume of stock. Where does that money come from when the Chancellor is taking more in corporation tax, plus the two per cent. national insurance surcharge and in all the means by which inflation affects business. The money comes from the profits that will be depressed lower as a result of this legislation. It means fewer jobs, less investment, less production and the destruction of incentives.
If the amendment is carried, I see a hope that the Price Commission might act upon it. It might change its role from seeking to cut profits to explaining their importance. It might run courses for the benefit of hon. Members below the Gangway explaining the direct relationship between profit and jobs and how one may be traded off against the

other. This Government have chosen to put profits down and unemployment up. That might be a useful new role for the Commission.
The Commission could act as defender of the profit motive, seeking to create the rejuvenation of British industry and perhaps spearheading a massive job creation programme which was based on incentive and free from Government interference and which would restore profits and confidence and the recreation of investment. That would be a role that even my right hon. and hon. Friends could support. I hope that they will support the amendment, which is designed to mitigate some of the damage caused by the Undersecretary of State who looks so lonely sitting on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Maclennan: It is right for me to intervene early in the debate which has so far mirrored debates that we had in Committee on similar amendments.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) exaggerated the effect that the Bill will have upon the profitability of companies operating in this country. Indeed, it is fair to say that his speech amounted to little more than scare-mongering.
The attractiveness of the price control measures that this Government are proud to have advanced is that they will not only be effective in restraining unjustified price increases—more so than measures introduced in the Price Code by the Conservative Government—but they will do so in a more discriminatory way and ensure that companies receive adequate profits. That is specifically written into the Bill.
The purpose of the clause is to safeguard the position of industry, particularly in respect of making adequate profits. Of course, it is necessary to make adequate profits to secure and safeguard employment. That reality is as much recognised by my hon. Friends and me as it is by the Opposition. It is not only guaranteed by the clause but it has also been further underwritten by the safeguards to which the hon. Lady referred. The whole thrust of this policy is directed to safeguarding the position of firms that might feel threatened by inadequate profits, and I believe that we are successfully protecting their position.
5.30 a.m.
I fully understand and sympathise with the motives of the hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) in bringing forward Amendment No. 10. The desire to protect employment at present must be genuinely a prime consideration of every hon. Member. It is perfectly reasonable to seek whatever means are to hand to underline and emphasise that point. But the Bill is primarily concerned not with the creation of employment but with safeguarding the British consumer from unjustified price increases. We see no incompatibility between that objective and safeguarding employment, but we do not see the Bill as a means of creating employment.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman spoke at great length, and I am still answering his points. It will simplify matters if I answer some of the points raised.

Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to accuse an hon. Member of scaremongering and to refuse to allow him to reply to the point?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Maclennan: As I was saying, I greatly sympathise with the hon. Lady's motives in bringing forward the amendment. However, I think that she will realise that if one incorporated a provision of the kind suggested among the criteria in Clause 2(2), there would be a genuine risk that firms wanting to make price increases unjustifiably would go to the Price Commission and threaten redundancies if they were not permitted to get the price increase for which they were applying. It is to protect the community, the consumers—many of whom are unemployed consumers, admittedly—from that kind of threat that one has come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate to include in the Bill a provision of the kind suggested. But employment is clearly embodied in the criteria as a consideration to which the Price Commission would animadvert in arriving at its decisions.
Clause 2(2)(c)(ii), which we debated earlier and which refers to the need for the provision of money for the encouragement and promotion of innovations, technical improvements and new expansion of enterprises in the United Kingdom, is directly dealing with the provision of employment. I think that the hon. Lady will, on reflection, see that we have struck a balance in the clause between prevention of unjustified price increases and meeting the needs of industry for adequate profits.

Mr. Tim Smith: What would there be to prevent a company from threatening redundancies even if the amendment were not included?

Mr. Maclennan: Nothing at all. It is perfectly possible that a company can do that, but the criteria which are spelt out in Clause 2(2) are mostly of a measurable kind and the Price Commission will have to exercise its judgment on individual claims which it is open to companies to advance.
Amendment No. 12 would impose on the Price Commission the task of carrying out a particular study into regional price variations. Naturally, this is a subject in which I have a great interest. Under the existing powers, the Price Commission, as the hon. Member fairly said, carried out such a study of variations in food prices in the United Kingdom, particularly in remote areas.
It is open to us, within the terms of the Bill, to make a general reference to the Price Commission, when it is established in its new form, to look into precisely the matters to which the hon. Lady referred. It seems to me appropriate, if such a reference were contemplated—and as she was told in Committee such a reference is being considered—to do it at a time when, the Bill having been enacted, there are powers to do something about the recommendations of the Commission. At this time, no such powers exist.
We have an interesting and valuable report from the Commission on regional food price variations, but the present panopoly of powers is inadeqate to act on it. It is fair to say that the Commission, in looking at prices in outlying areas, found no evidence of wholesalers and retailers exploiting the situation of their relative freedom to the detriment


of consumers, but the problem to which the hon. Lady referred is real and the matter she attributed as a cause of part of the difficulty—for example, the larger discounts available to the larger firms operating in more densely populated parts of the country—is precisely the sort of issue for the new Commission to consider.

Mr. Raison: This is an interesting and important subject. It is interesting that the SNP wants uniform pricing throughout the United Kingdom and a uniform economy. However, whereas food prices may be more on the West Coast of Scotland, their housing costs may be much cheaper. It is nonsensical to feel that one can abolish imbalance in this field but have a substantial imbalance in other fields, outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: I fully accept what was said about differing variations within the total cost of living but that, it seems to me, would not be a reason for not looking at such variations as occurred and which would fall within the scope of the Price Commission's powers. However, the nub is that one wants to be in a position to do something about what is unjustifiable and we shall be better placed to do something about it after this Bill becomes law.
Because I very much share the hon. Lady's objectives, I hope that we shall make progress towards them in the debate.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: It is clear from that performance that the Minister of State has acquired some of the arrogance of the Secretary of State without acquiring any greater understanding of his Department's responsibilities than he had three or four years ago when I first listened to him in Committee on a prices matter. It was a lamentable performance.
As this is my first intervention on this Bill, I should start by declaring an interest as a director and substantial shareholder of—dare I say?—a well-known multiple food retailer and I have a number of other interests as director and shareholder of companies which can be affected by the Bill. Those interests are substantially the same as those which are listed in the register of Members' interests; it has not been up-dated for a

long time but there is no substantial difference, as I recall. [Interruption.] Perhaps I ought to pause for the commercial that I am getting from Labour Members below the Gangway. Does the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) wish to intervene?

Mr. Fernyhough: I merely said to my hon. Friend that after the hon. Gentleman fulfilled all the obligations to which he referred he occasionally found time to come to the House of Commons.

Mr. Sainsbury: We would be better employed addressing our minds to the Bill than to that sort of intervention.
I should like to address my remarks primarily to Amendment No. 12, but before doing so I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 10, particularly in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) has said.
I suppose the first thing one might ask is whether Amendment No. 10 is necessary. It seems astonishing that we should find it necessary to include in a Bill of this type
the need to safeguard employment opportunities
at all, let alone
the need to safeguard employment opportunities particularly in development areas".
If there were any sense, meaning or coherence in what passed for the Minister's reply, it was that this was necessary. The hon. Gentleman told us that adequate profits were written into the Bill beyond a doubt. If he can believe that after three years in office, British industry and commerce, whatever their size, have a great deal to fear from any Department in which the hon. Gentleman has any responsibility.
I can assure the Minister that both British industry and commerce have a totally different opinion. I believe that opinion is soundly based on a study of the Bill and on the totally inadequate safeguards that have been presented to the House. One has only to go through the Bill to see how inadequate they are. There is
the need to recover costs".
That is a splendid incentive to invest. A person can get his money back if he is lucky. If a person is lucky he can be allowed to recover his costs. Big deal!
We then move on from subsection 2(a) to subsection 2(b), which refers to
the desirability of encouraging reductions in costs".
That does not exactly sound the sort of thing which ensures that a person has an adequate profit.
Subsection 2(c)—this was the one point on which the Minister seemed to attach particular importance—refers to
the need to earn, from selling goods and providing services in the United Kingdom, profits which provide a return on the capital employed".
That does not refer to an adequate return but to a totally unquantified level. What does that mean? Does it mean 3 per cent., or 1 per cent. or half of 1 per cent., or 0·1 per cent.? Will the Minister tell me? I would willingly give way to receive further illumination from the hon. Gentleman's lips about the wonderful safeguards written into the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: I refer the hon. Gentleman to Clause 2(1) which refers to
adequate profits".

Mr. Sainsbury: That refers to "adequate profits" in an undefined way. I do not think an investor would regard that as any sort of safeguard. One can go right the way through the safeguards that are so far written into the Bill. It is quite clear that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) was well advised to introduce Amendment No. 10 because it is very extremely necessary.

Mr. Adley: When my hon. Friend asked the Minister to give an answer to his question we were regaled by the single word "adequate". Perhaps my hon. Friend can ask the Minister what the word "adequate" means in terms of the profit levels that he was talking about?

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: I doubt very much whether from such an inadequate Minister we should get an adequate reply about the meaning of the word "adequate". 11 the Minister wishes to answer that point I shall be only too happy to give way. But I think that he feels that silence is the better option on this occasion.
The Minister has lamentably failed to understand the fundamental aspect of investment and job creation. I do not expect that lot below the Gangway to

understand—[Interruption]—they are not interested—but the Minister should have some idea——

Mr. Russell Kerr: That is the last time that I shop at Sainsburys.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Unless we hear what the hon. Member is saying, we shall make no progress at all.

Mr. Fernyhough: But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member referred to us as "that mob" below the Gangway. All I said was that he was an arrogant millionaire, using phraseology of that kind.

Mr. Ian Gow: Should not the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) withdraw the slights about my hon. Friend? With these Ministers in power it is impossible to have that amount of money.

Mr. Sainsbury: The word that I used was "lot", not "mob". I said that I did not expect that lot below the Gangway to understand. But I had hoped that after three and a half years in office the Minister had begun to have an inkling of understanding of what will help investment and jobs. He appears to be totally unaware of, and fails to appreciate, the vital role of uncertainty. Every investment decision involves an element of judgment. I have never known or heard of any business decision being made with all the information that one would like. It is not obtainable, and if it were it would take so long to get it that one would never get around actually to making a decision. There is always an element of judgment—about the demand for a product, the competition, the relative movement of raw material prices, and the relevant movement of any input prices affecting output prices for the commodity. These are essential elements of uncertainty.
When one looks at more important investment decisions one is usually looking at the question of using new machinery, or existing machinery adapted or linked together in new ways. Then one enters another area of uncertainty—the rate of production per hour or per week out of that particular piece of machinery. What down-time is one to allow? There are a large number of uncertain factors in any investment decision. Because of this it is inevitable that


there will be occasions when an investment decision proves somewhat unprofitable. It may be so unprofitable that it has to be abandoned. One hopes that that will not happen in too many cases. In many cases it will prove unprofitable in the early stages when things do not come up to expectations, and they have to be put right. In these circumstances it may be a number of years before investors can begin to show a reasonable rate of return on profit.
The investor will face an additional degree of uncertainty as a result of the provisions of this Bill because, when he has finally reached the stage when he might be able to start earning a reasonable profit, the Commission will step in and take away from him the opportunity of earning that profit. It will be the final straw that will deter many investors, large or small, from making an investment because they cannot be sure that they will be allowed to make a reasonable profit. For this reason I entirely support the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East on Amendment No. 10.
I also support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the importance to small firms of the amendment. Smaller firms are more prone to the factors of uncertainty to which I have referred because they do not have such a dominant position in the market and they take on an added importance in development areas to which the hon. Lady's mind was addressed.
I wish to tell the hon. Lady, before she leaves the Chamber, that I cannot find the same degree of warm-hearted support for her Amendment No. 12. Indeed, I would urge her, if it comes to it, to consider withdrawing it. That amendment would seek to give the Commission
the function of carrying out, and of preparing a report in consequence of an investigation into the wholesale and retail trades of the reasons for the imbalance of pricing in the various parts of the United Kingdom and in pursuance of such a report of issuing guidelines and recommendations for the eradication of such an imbalance.
Therefore, that amendment would give the Commission that major function. We might first seek to determine whether in practice there are differences on such a

scale and of such importance that that sort of function might reasonably be given to the Commission.
I have with me a copy of Which?, a magazine which could fairly be said to be on the side of the consumer, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that it is published by the Consumers Association. Once a year Which? conducts a survey into grocery prices. I do not wish to go through the whole survey, although there are one or two phrases in it that I find particularly attractive—for example:
There were a few J. Sainsbury Superstores that got the highest rating of all".
However, I do not want to dwell on that part of the survey but, instead, on the findings on regional differences. In the last two years the survey appears to have been carried out in October, and therefore we have not yet had the results for this year. However, if we examine the findings in October 1975 in terms of regional differences, the survey says:
Chains do not necessarily have uniform pricing policies in all branches, so a chain can be cheap in one region and expensive in another".
The survey carried out in October 1975 did not find enormous differences in regional prices taken overall. Only four out of eight chains surveyed operated in all the regions. A number of the general stores surveyed by Which? did not operate outside their own areas. Of the four chains operating in all the regions that were surveyed, it was found that the cheapest sample shopping basket could be bought in Scotland. I do not know whether I should be advertising, but the cheapest of the sample included one from a large multiple chain, next followed two of the independent groups and one of the retailers better known for non-food operations. According to the Which? survey, all four stores were found to have the cheapest prices in Scotland. One could reasonably conclude that at least at the time of the survey there were not substantial regional differences throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does my hon Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) accept that, as shown by the Price Commission report on food prices in outlying areas, it is the outlying areas that suffer most because there is no access


to the chain stores referred to by the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful for that intervention. I have a copy of that report and I shall deal with that aspect of the matter in a moment.
I should like to report on what was said by the October 1976 Which? survey which further confirmed my point. I quote:
We found that the prices of own brands within a chain were very consistent throughout the country, so this year we have not given regional own brand pricing reports but just a regional figure.
It appears that the difference in prices was not enough to justify giving a separate regional figure for different groups, although the report said that the price of other brands within a chain may vary considerably from one part of the country to another.
As usual, the North of England was generally the cheapest place for branded food and the South-East the most expensive area. Hon. Members may get a surprise if they go to shop in the North of Scotland. It might surprise many hon. Members to learn that London was the most expensive area for branded food.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Can my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) please tell us about prices in Wales where there was a Carrefour operation which indicated a substantial reduction in the price of the shopping basket for most areas there?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not have the relevant survey in front of me. A survey was carried out in the area of the Carrefour hypermarket.

Mr. Adley: Perhaps I can give some information. I understand that the Carrefour hypermarket in South Wales has low prices. Perhaps one of the specific advantages of it is that there is a bag park and that customers are not allowed to take their shopping baskets into the shopping area. This has reduced shoplifting and pilfering and helped to reduce costs. Will my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), when discussing food prices in Scotland and outlying areas, take into account the following question? It may well be that because of the lower

incomes in certain parts of the country, retailers will naturally do their best to ensure that food prices in those areas are kept as low as possible, but that if, say, Scotland were to be totally separated from the rest of the United Kingdom this advantage might not be enjoyed by people in Scotland, who would find that the trade-offs between the relatively richer and poorer parts of the United Kingdom were not applicable.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has a valid point. I can think of so many economic disadvantages that would flow to Scotland if we were to follow the course of separatism advocated by the SNP that I could quickly be ruled out of order if I tried to enumerate them.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman acept that one of the advantages to Scotland might be the employment associated with the production of branded foodstuffs at home? Some food manufacturers have moved away from Scotland to other parts of the country. For instance, Robertson's Jams, set up in Paisley many years ago, moved to Bristol and subsequently closed down its operation in Paisley. It is now even considering moving to the Continent to be nearer the major markets. Therefore, there are advantages that can come from control of one's own supplies. However, we cannot go too far into that matter without straying off the subject of this debate.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman's intervention seems relevant to me, but I would point out that the company to which he referred was probably adjusting its production facilities to ensure the lowest possible price to the consumer. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that such a company should be made to manufacture in an unsuitable place, which would make it produce more expensively. Presumably it would be able to do so in Scotland only if Scotland closed its borders to imports of goods produced by more economic manufacturers.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I can remember from the age of three, and probably before, Robertson's making jolly good Gollywog marmalade and so on in Bristol. Indeed, it is a Bristol family as far as I know.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: It is a Paisley firm.

Mr. Sainsbury: I shall not join in the dialogue about the geographical origins of that distinguished food-producing firm.
My point was that the SNP attitude seemed to be based on a closed economy, with a closed border, securing the employment by shutting out all imports. I dread to think of the prices that would result in Scotland from such a shortsighted attitude. The only growth in employment that would be likely to result would be in the bureaucracy at St. Andrew's House.

Mr. Adley: To resolve the differences between my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), perhaps I might ask my hon. Friend to pay a tribute to Claire Francis for her outstanding achievements in "Robertson's Golly", which boat is kept in my constituency, in Lymington.

Mr. Sainsbury: That is a connection that I had not registered, but it brings me back on course. Before we were drawn into this gollywog land we were talking about Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) had asked me to tell him about price variations in the region of the Carrefour store at Caerphilly. I had said that there was, I believed, a survey in that area which found not only that the prices in the store were favourable but that the prices in the shops and supermarkets in the area of influence of that large store had come down and stayed down after its opening. There is another survey carried out by a Government Department in Chandlers Ford in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), and I believe that its findings were broadly similar.
The most authoritative document on price variations is the Price Commission's survey on food prices in outlying areas. This considered not only prices in the regions of the United Kingdom but particularly prices in outlying areas of those regions compared with more central areas. One has only to look at some of the maps provided with the survey and attempt to pronounce the names of some of the places involved to realise that there are

many which are sparsely inhabited, in mainly agricultural or forestry land with its central area being a small town or even a village.
One might argue that such instances are not directly relevant to the amendment, but the general picture of the survey is that food prices in outlying areas are, overall, somewhat higher than in more central areas, but that the difference is small—about 2·8 per cent. The North of Scotland showed the greatest disparity at 7·3 per cent. above typical national prices. These are prices that will be heavily weighted towards the major conurbations that contain the bulk of the population.
I was astonished to note that prices in Northumberland were lower and I wondered whether the Commission had added the figures correctly. In four of the 11 places studied by the Commission, the difference was less than one penny in the pound, though it was found even in small towns that the overall prices masked wide disparities in the prices of individual commodities.
The relevant lesson that we can draw in relation to Amendment No. 12 from this valuable survey published in 1975 is that there are a number of factors that inevitably affect prices of all goods and particularly food in outlying areas in our more distant regions. Most important is the settlement pattern, particularly the density of population and size of the central area involved. It could be as small as a hamlet or a village of a few hundred people.
It seemed fairly clear that this was a decisive factor in the price variation that was found. The report referred to some of the other factors that led to the settlement pattern having such an effect. For example, in paragraph 4.8 it is pointed out that if there is a small population, or a small concentration of population, inevitably the demand for any type of goods will be limited. It states that wholesalers are prepared to deliver to retailers but that many manufacturers apply small-order surcharges and grant discounts based on volume. There is nothing unfair or unreasonable in that.
Labour Members who have made scathing comments about such practices should consider the attitude of the co-operative movement. The movement is by far the largest food retailer, being more


than twice as large as the next largest. The next largest retailer has substantially less than 10 per cent. of the food market. Not only is the co-operative movement the largest food retailer in the United Kingdom but it is the retailer to which most families have access. A high proportion of United Kingdom consumers are close, or very close, to a co-operative store. Therefore, they have the opportunity to use co-operative stores for some or all of their food shopping if they so desire.
Perhaps it is a tribute to the competitiveness of the private sector that everybody does not shop at the co-op and that its share of the market went through quite a long period of decline before stabilising recently.
The co-operative movement has a price differential structure. I do not know whether it has units that it calls hypermarkets, but prices are very much lower in its super stores than in its smallest units. The super stores are not quite as large as the hypermarkets but prices are lower in the super stores than in the supermarkets and prices in the supermarkets are lower than in the next grade of store, until we come to the co-operative store in the smallest Welsh village, for example, where we find the highest prices quoted in the Co-operative range.
Discounts for volume and small order surcharges are reflected in the co-operative movement's prices. That is because it reflects the reality of distribution costs. It physically costs more to make up a small order. There is the same paper work and the same van mileage. The same time is involved for the driver. Instead of unloading a lorry load, or several pallets, at the destination, often only a few cases are unloaded. It is inevitable that there are higher costs.
An approach could be adopted—this seems inherent in the amendment—that would eradicate such a situation. That would begin to be possible only by decreeing that the price at all stores should be no less than the price required to sustain the smallest store in business half way up Snowdon or Ben Nevis, or whatever appropriate mountain the hon Lady cares to choose. It is only in that way that I can conceive that we can overcome the differences that are inherent in the different settlement patterns that we find throughout the country.
That is not the only factor that will inevitably lead to differences in costs between one area and another and between different parts of the same area. Road distances are inherent in my reference to delivery costs. There are local costs such as rates. In some areas, particularly city areas, the rates are so high as to make them become a significant factor in the overall cost of distribution. Clearly rates are much higher in some areas than in others. That is the sort of difference that will be reflected in operational costs and in prices to the consumer.
Another factor that makes a substantial difference to prices is that to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead was referring when he asked me whether I knew anything about a survey of prices in the vicinity of the Carrefour store at Caerphilly.
It was strongly put to the Minister by many interests in the retail trade, including the co-operative movement, that the retail trade could keep down prices to the consumer most effectively by being allowed to develop the modern units which experience shows that the consumer wants and which will enable the retailer to offer to the consumer convenient, comfortable shopping, good car parking and access, and lower prices. There is evidence to that effect as a result of independent surveys. The Minister will be aware of the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture as well as his own Ministry which points to this being a genuine cost-saving opportunity to the consumer.

6.15 a.m.

Mr. Fernyhough: As the hon. Gentleman represents a party which believes in the small business man and small businesses, will he say how far the interests of small businesses are protected by the opening of vast supermarkets?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman should study the plentiful literature on the subject I refer him to the work of the unit for retail planning information. I am chairman of its council. That is an independent body sponsored by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade. It has representatives from local government and retailing. That literature will provide the right hon. Gentleman with a bibliography on the


subject. He may check what I say against the research findings.
The large stores have their major competitive effect upon the next size of store down the line. If somebody opens a super-store or hypermarket—the latter term is not clearly defined—the competitive stores most likely to be adversely affected are the older, smaller supermarkets. The local, small shops in the parade and the corner shops are least affected by these developments. In most cases their entrepreneurial proprietors are skilled at adapting their businesses to the changing patterns of demand that the presence of a very large retail outlet in the area will bring about. Such a proprietor will quickly adapt his trading hours and range of goods. He shows considerable intrepreneurial skills in doing so. As a result, the smaller, older supermarkets are most adversely affected by the opening of these very large stores.

Mr. Adley: My hon. Friend is making an important point which is relevant to the Bill. He says—I agree—that the small independent corner shop which provides a service by opening on Sundays, which is not provided by the multiples, is fulfilling a valuable role in the community. But to do that it must charge higher unit prices. If a shopkeeper pays his staff, however few, to open on Sundays, he must pay them overtime. Does not my hon. Friend think that the words "adequate profit", which the Minister so lamentably failed to define, could be used by the Price Commission, under the powers given in the Bill, to force these small shops, on which so many of our constituents rely, to close?

Mr. Sainsbury: That is a relevant point.

Mr. Maclennan: It is irresponsible.

Mr. Sainsbury: The Minister may be sensitive on this point because of the consequences of what he has already done. We told him often enough on the first Bill he handled with his present responsibilities that holding down unreasonably the prices of large retailers drove out of business small retailers because their already in adequate profits disappear. If it one says that the profit of a major producer of portable radios is unjustified—the most indefinite term—because it rep-

resents an 11 per cent. return on capital, something permitted only to holders of Government stock, and if one makes him hold down his prices, those selling in competition with the brand leader will have to hold down their prices, too. They will be put out of business and we shall lose employment and export opportunities.

Mr. Adley: When I last intervened the Minister described what I said as irresponsible—as though it was irresponsible to suggest that the Price Commission should do what is in the Bill. If my hon. Friend could get the Minister to repeat that word, would he invite him to agree to accept a manuscript amendment to ensure that Sunday opening and other public services are taken into account in the assessing of "adequate profits"? The Commission would then be spared the nonsenses of other legislation of this Government, which has been interpreted as totally inconsistent with their intentions?

Mr. Sainsbury: The safeguards are indeed inadequate if they do not cover such points. It is impossible for any Government operation, especially one led by the Minister, to fulfil the grandiose intentions of the Bill.
My argument to the hon. Lady is that there are factors which affect prices differently in different places, even within the same region, and that they cannot sensibly be eradicated. For final proof, she should look again at the authoritative document she quoted.

Mr. Loyden: The hon. Gentleman says that that document is authoritative and he talks about price variations in the regions. There is a variation and a more authoritative document than that in one type of establishment in my constituency. That is the little slip that the housewife gets when she passes the till on her way out of the supermarket. A survey carried out by housewives in the area has revealed a variation in the shopping baskets of £1·50 to £1·60 between the two supermarkets.

Mr. Sainsbury: I cannot speak with authority on the competitive situation in the Garston division of Liverpool. But I should like to make two points. First, shopping surveys are notoriously unreliable guides. We shall come to that point on a later amendment on Clause 18. However, with respect to the housewives


to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I suggest that an amateur survey is likely to be more unreliable than the average survey. There is a built-in automatic problem of choosing a constant basket of goods. For example to quote a competitor, one could not choose a basket of goods in one supermarket which was identical with a basket of goods in Marks & Spencer, because Marks & Spencer's goods are own label. Therefore, one cannot go into a supermarket and buy a can of Marks & Spencer's baked beans any more than one can find a brand leader can of baked beans in Marks & Spencer. There is that difficulty built into the comparison.
Secondly, different families will have different tastes. Some children like one cereal; others like another. Some will have a cooked breakfast; others will not. Families do not buy the same baskets of goods. Therefore, we must make an arbitrary assumption that a basket is not standard for any family.
In order to get a real price comparison between two principal food stores, each of which will be selling at least 4,000 lines, I suggest that it is necessary to take a weighted sample of at least 200 lines, if not many more. Only in that way can one get a meaningful across-the-board price comparison.

Mrs. Bain: I find it difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the everyday housewife. After all, there is nothing more constant than the shopping that she has to purchase each week. I suggest that she could tell the hon. Gentleman about the variations in an area. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not accept that the housewife has time to shop around from shop to shop to get the best bargains. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should speak to the housewife about her constant shopping basket and the variations.

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I could not agree more with her. However, in doing so, I am not in any way contradicting what I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). The British and the Scottish housewife is a very knowledgeable shopper—I am married to a Scot, so I have some authoritative knowledge on that subject—but she is not a very knowledgeable or experienced comparer of shopping baskets as between one store

and another, if for no other reason than that I do not see her buying a weighted basket of 200 items from one store and a similarly weighted basket of 200 items from another store, adding the whole lot up and arriving at a reasonable comparison, and doing it on a continuing, not a one-off, basis. However she knows from personal experience not only of some shopping around, but of that most effective method of shopping—talking to the housewife next door or in the flat across the landing about what she is finding. Hon. Members who do not often accompany their wives when they shop might be surprised how quickly information about the variations in prices or performance of different shops spreads round an area.
6.30 a.m.
That brings me to the second point that is relevant to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston was saying about price variations in his constituency. It is most difficult to take account of variations in quality when comparing prices. Quality covers a wide range of factors. Let us consider the simple and much bought commodity of back bacon. We are told that the British breakfast is going out of fashion, but happily much back bacon is still consumed. The first simple error that is likely to occur is smoked bacon being compared with unsmoked. bacon. A smoked commodity is dried and therefore reduced in weight. The price per pound of smoked bacon is higher than that of unsmoked, although the visual volume may appear to be the same.
If one is skilled at cutting up a side of bacon one tries to put the knife down the middle so that back bacon appears one side of the knife and streaky bacon on the other. One tries not to do it in such a way as to have streaky bacon on one side and back, with a little streaky, on the other. Such bacon should cost less but if one sold it at the same price as back bacon, one would increase one's profit. A shrewd Scottish housewife would spot that poor quality, but I doubt whether a Price Commission inspector would know one end of bacon from the other.

Mr. Tim Renton(Mid-Sussex): My hon. Friend has made an important and interesting point. The amendment refers


to the eradication of an imbalance. Surely the real point is that the Scottish housewife likes a different type of bacon from the English housewife. On my visits to Scotland I have noticed a different quality of bacon to that found in my constituency.
The term "standard basket" is frequently used to describe hon. Members and I was interested in its application to household goods. The imbalance exists in different areas in the quality and type of goods that customers buy.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend is correct about the variation in regional tastes. He shares with me the privilege and advantage of having a Scottish wife, as well as representing a Sussex constituency.
I was referring to the way in which bacon was smoked, or unsmoked, and cut. We must also consider the amount of fat in bacon. On a well-selected side of bacon there will be an oblong shape of lean meat. If it is not so good, the top of the oblong will be fat and the piece of bacon will contain more fat than a better-quality cut. The inspectors sent out by the Price Commission to determine the price of bacon will not have a clue about what to look for in a piece of bacon. They would not be able to tell whether it was fresh—another factor that the Scottish housewife would take into account when deciding whether to shop where bacon was sold at a higher price than at another shop. In terms of value, which is what we are talking about—not just price, but value—it may well be that the shop whose back bacon was more expensive per pound was offering very much better value than the other shop.
That is one of the reasons why I suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston that it is very difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these surveys.

Mr. Fernyhough: As the hon. Gentleman has spent so much time discussing bacon, I wonder whether he will now tell me why there should be such a variation between the prices of Lurpak butter and New Zealand Anchor butter, which are of the same quality. The price varies. In the hon. Gentleman's shops it is dearer than in some of the shops that I know.

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not know whether Mr. Deputy Speaker would suggest that I should follow that particular point very far, but it is relevant to the general argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "The CAP?"] I do not wish to go into that. However, it is relevant to the general argument. At one shop there may be one brand of butter, and at another shop there may be another brand. Therefore, it does not give a fair comparison if one goes into supermarket A wishing to compare the price of Lurpak butter there with what is offered at supermarket B. One needs to look at the types of Danish slightly salted butter in one store and then in some other stores. The right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) referred to those with which I am connected. The cheapest brand will almost certainly be an own label, and therefore it is not obtainable in the other stores. However, if one is making a meaningful comparison, it would seem to be fair and reasonable to compare the price of the cheapest brands available of the particular commodities one wants to look at and not just, in advance, to compare the price of two brands, because that would not give a fair comparison.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) has moved an amendment which proposes that the Price Commission should prepare
a report in consequence of an investigation
The point that I put to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this. Is not the subject that ought to be under debate the question whether a report be produced by the Price Commission, and is it not straying beyond the terms of the amendment to discuss what might possibly be the content of such a report and what might be the reasons for variations in prices? The point at issue is whether there should be a report.

Mr. Sainsbury: There are two amendments.

Mr. John Fraser: I am talking about Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Sainsbury: There is also Amendment No. 10.

Mr. John Fraser: The point at issue is whether there should be a report and not the potential contents of that report.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point of order at a time is quite adequate. It appears to me that Amendment No. 12 deals with the "imbalance of pricing" and various other matters. So far I have heard nothing which would be out of order.

Mr. Adley: Further to the point of order raised by the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in view of your ruling that you have heard nothing which was out of order, with which I think all of us in the Chamber who have sat through the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), from his own experience, will be in agreement, perhaps I may put it to you as a point of order, following the exchanges that we have had so far, that I should like to move the following manuscript amendment, in Clause 2, page 3, line 24, at end add,
subject to geographic considerations and to the opening hours of the premises concerned or any other considerations relevant to the specialised nature of the goods or services supplied.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member is well aware that it is not the usual practice to accept a manuscript amendment,

Mr. Adley: Are you in fact ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will not accept a manuscript amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that I shall not accept one.

Mr. Sainsbury: Perhaps I have taken rather longer than I intended in my remarks, because I have had a very large number of interventions. A number of very interesting points have been raised from all parts of the House and I think that they have been relevant to the general argument which relates to Amendment No. 12 and to whether it would be a reasonable function to give to the Price Commission to require it to prepare a report
in consequence of an investigation into the wholesale and retail trades of the reasons for the imbalance of pricing in the various parts of the United Kingdom and in pursuance of such a report of issuing guidelines and recommendations for the eradication of such an imbalance.

What I have been trying to argue is that I do not believe that it is a practical proposition, having regard to the factors which lead to different prices in different regions and different shops and even in different parts of the same region, to charge the Price Commission with carrying out that function. It will be totally unable to carry out the functions it has already been given and I suggest to the hon. Lady that it will also not be able to carry out this function.
I would wish to quote the document which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East has and to which she has already referred. She will find in it that the most conclusive argument is that the actual profit made by the firms surveyed in the outlying area was almost always very low. If those firms were all making very low profits, it is hard to argue that all were universally incompetent. It was inflation which was leading to higher prices where those were found.
Under the heading "retail grocers", the report on food prices in outlying areas says at paragraph 5.5 on page 13,
In the period for which accounts were studied, net margins varied from a loss of 7·63 per cent. to a profit of 8·02 per cent. In general, only those retailers with a turnover in excess of £30,000 were achieving a net profit of more than £2,000.
Admittedly, we are talking of 1975, but it is not all that long ago and that rate of return, even then, would be inadequate for the entrepreneurial proprietor of a grocery. The turnover at £30,000 a year would be £600 a week. When one takes account of an expenditure per head of the population of £4·50, which now is more like £3·50, the grocer's return is not likely to net more than a third of the total. This brings the figure down to £110 a head of 500 customers, and it is not possible for the most efficient grocers to command the entire trade in order to achieve that level.
I start on retail grocers because they come first in the report. If the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East looks at paragraph 5.8, relating to retail butchers, she will find that it says:
Table 3 indicates that the turnover of the average shop is considerably smaller than in central areas. Net profit amounts to only £1,994, which clearly represents nothing beyond the remuneration of the working proprietor.
In fact, £1,194 was well below industrial earnings at that time and is not a very


adequate return for a working proprietor. The average proprietor gives a very good service to the community.
At paragraph 5.11, we come to fruit and vegetable wholesalers. This is interesting because it looks at wholesalers:
Completed questionnaires were received from 10 wholesalers. Table 5 summarises this information and compares it with that shown in Table 3 of the Price Commission Fruit and Vegetables final report, based on the information received from 16 regional distributive wholesalers. From this it appears that the wholesalers serving outlying areas have a smaller turnover than those serving more central areas and take higher gross and net percentage margins. The capital employed is considerably less but so is the average cash profit per proprietor.
6.45 a.m.
Housewives in outlying areas are understandably aggrieved at rinding that the prices they have to pay are higher than they would wish. But if they went down to the large cities, for example, Aberdeen, Glasgow or Edinburgh, they would be able to buy goods at considerably cheaper prices than they could in their local shops. I understand their feeling that this is something they do not wish to accept. But this is inherent in the factors that effect the cost of retailing and wholesaling.
If one charges the Price Commission with eradicating these imbalances one charges it with doing something which can be achieved only by raising the prices in the shops in the whole of the United Kingdom, including that part of the central belt of Scotland which, I believe, contains about 80 per cent. of the whole population of Scotland.
I therefore suggest that this would be an ill-advised course to pursue. While I therefore wholeheartedly support the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East in Amendment No. 10, which is a valuable contribution to the inadequate safeguards built into this regrettable Bill, I cannot support her, and would oppose her, with regard to Amendment No. 12.

Mr. Younger: Mr. Younger rose——

Mrs. Bain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot accept the hon. Lady's motion at the moment.

Mr. Younger: As we have had such a valuable debate I am sorry that the hon.
Lady felt that she had to try to move the closure at this point, because I was going to say how grateful we all are to her for having raised these matters and given us the opportunity of a most interesting discussion on two important subjects.
If nothing else, the debate has demonstrated the value of having hon. Members in this House who have a particular expertise on matters of particular interest to industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) gave us an extremely well-informed speech, as we would expect, on the effects of the clause on small businesses, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) immensely informed and entertained us by his deep knowledge of the problems of retailing.
I hope that the hon. Lady herself will feel that the amendments that she has put down have been worth while. We are grateful to her for giving us this opportunity of debate.
I do not need to detain the House long by what I want to say. But it is important to emphasise to the Government that it is completely clear that the speeches that have been made since the Minister's intervention have shown how inadequate ministerial understanding is of what they are doing.
I would refer to the first of the hon. Lady's two amendments, the one regarding the taking into account of unemployment. The Government are extremely skilled at getting their timing about as wrong as they possibly can on almost every issue that they turn their hand to.
The Government have chosen this morning to debate this matter when we have only just had the announcement of even more serious unemployment figures than we have been used to in the past year. They are record figures for June. To choose this day to have a Minister say that he does not think it is a serious point that the Price Commission should be required to take into account unemployment when considering price increases is a bit much.
I hope that if we have not so far managed to dent the complete self-confidence of Ministers in this Department about the extremely undesirable parts of the Bill causing harm to the economy, we shall dent it in our arguments in this


debate. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, who explained the direct result that some of the features of the Bill would have in creating unemployment, particularly among those who run small businesses. Everyone who is involved in such a business knows that. Only the Ministers in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection do not accept it, and that is serious and regrettable.
It requires only the simplest illustration to show the effect on a small business when the industry in which it works is subjected to a refusal of a price increase for which it has paid. It is obvious that when a small business trading with difficulty in the conditions created by this Government, and faced with costs, overheads and charges going up at an alarming rate every month, has to wait up to five months to recoup its price increases, cash flow will be badly affected. The only solution is to contract its activities. This may mean laying off people, or cutting costs by some other means.
The first amendment, which instructs the Price Commission to take account of the facts of unemployment when considering applications for price increases, is an obvious and desirable thing to write into the Bill.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Including pries increases for beer?

Mr. Younger: I have no reason to think that this legislation excludes beer or any other commodity.
The Minister contended that it was not necessary to spell out the fact that unemployment should be taken into account, because this was assumed in other parts of the clause. That is not a weighty point because there are so many detailed provisions in this clause anyway that one could say that most things were assumed.
When making a specific provision for taking account of profitability, maintaining the quality of goods and safeguarding the interests of people one should make use of the facilities in the business. At a time when unemployment is one of the most critical factors that we are trying to deal with, it is tactless—indeed, even cynical—to exclude these provisions when laying down what the Price Commission shall take into account. The hon. Lady

was absolutely right tu put the amendment down.
I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will have second thoughts and agree to the amendment. What will he lose by accepting it? What sort of embarrassment would it be to the Price Commission if it had to take this matter into account? It merely writes into the Bill what the Minister hopes it will do anyway. Surely this is an occasion when the Minister could give something to the Opposition. It will do no harm to the Government's intentions and it will let the House see that hon. Members are not carrying out their work in vain.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Minister gave as a reason for not accepting the amendment the implausible reason that employers would go to the Price Commission and threaten unemployment if they were not allowed to amend their prices? Does this not show on the part of the Government an attitude of total distrust of all employers? Is not this the motivation behind most of the Bill?

Mr. Younger: I did not take the Minister's remarks on that score all that seriously. The idea that employers would threaten unemployment to impress the commission was far-fetched, and I did not want to take up time going into it. I did not think anybody would take it seriously.
What the hon. Lady said on Amendment No. 12 was valuable, but I share some of the misgivings about the wisdom of the amendment as it stands. If by some means or other we want to arrange to ease the price levels in the remoter areas, we shall do so only by raising prices in the less remote areas. It means that people in the cities will have to pay more in order to lower the cost for those who live far afield. I am not saying that that is necessarily a bad idea, but I do not think that we should discuss these matters here bearing in mind the inevitable effect of evening out prices. Therefore, it is valuable to write into the Bill the function of preparing a report on the subject. But this does not necessarily mean that we accept the practicability of seeking to even out prices throughout the country.
Many industries and sales organisations manage to sell at the same price all over


the country. It is worked out on an economic basis, and those in the more central areas inevitably pay a little more so that it is the remoter areas that have an easier price. However, I do not think it is possible in every case, and we should not give the impression that the matter is as simple as it might appear to be.

Mr. Sainsbury: Those organisations with a constant price list are probably dealing in merchandise where the value-to-weight ratio is different from that in food because they are dealing in stores of comparable size, effort and range.
I do not think that that sort of pattern is reflected in the outlying areas to which the amendment is, in part, directed.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Younger: I do not disagree, but I was entering a caveat that we should not believe that it is all so simple.
I wish to leave time for my hon. Friends who wish to speak to make their contributions. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) for moving the amendment, and we hope that the Government will show some more responsiveness to the Committee. I hope that the Government will try to meet the Committee, because that is the way to make progress with the Bill, and I hope that the Government will learn that sooner rather than later.

Mr. Hector Monro: I am glad to follow the Opposition spokesman, because he has put forward a number of important points, particularly in support of Amendment No. 10. I also wish to criticise the Minister's speech because it did not allay any of our fears about the interpretation of Clause 2. In fact, the Minister made things seem worse than that which many of us had read into the clause, and his dogmatic approach did not help his case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said that this was a simple amendment. Indeed, I cannot understand why the Government did not give way on it. They could have saved more than two hours of debate, with hon. Members trying to press on the Minister that the Government have got into a thorough muddle—as they have done so often with other legislation throughout this Session.
I want to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr

about the unemployment in Scotland, because that is the basis of the concern that produced Amendment No. 10. It was announced yesterday that the monthly increase in unemployment in Scotland was 22,055, bringing unemployment there up to a total of 186,218, or 8·6 per cent. of the working population. That is an absolute disgrace and condemnation of the Government. One must rememeber that a large proportion of that increase was among young people and that the figures cover the period of the year when one normally expects the biggest monthly fall in unemployment. This is a staggering rise and an all-time high since the war. How any Government can continue to stay in office and bring forward such legislation as this when they have completely lost the confidence of the country is beyond understanding.
We wonder whether these are the better times about which we keep hearing from the Prime Minister. However, even the right hon. Gentleman must draw down the shutters a little, and perhaps he will do that during Question Time tomorrow—if we are not still sitting.
In the light of the statistics I have just quoted it is surely the Government's duty to try to conserve employment and not to force industry in development areas out of business. Certainly this small amendment would give an added impact to the Commission before it came to any major decision on prices that would affect industry. It is important because the amendment specifically refers to development areas and the special development areas which still have a marginal incentive for the attraction of new industry. The amendment would give those areas some assurance that the Commission would look at prices in relation to the impact that they might have upon employment.
If the average in Scotland in now 8.6 per cent., it stands to reason that in many areas the figure will be substantially higher. In my own constituency it is probably 10 per cent., and in certain parts it is 16 per cent. or 17 per cent. While we have job creation schemes, the refusal of price increases without good reason and without bearing in mind the impact on employment could increase redundancy and/or introduce short-time working and result in a call upon the Government to provide temporary employment


subsidy, which takes a particularly long time to agree with the Department of Employment. The process must be speeded up.
Over the years special development areas in particular have had assistance from all Governments with their advance factory programmes, and they have attracted industry to the factories with the help of local authorities and Government agencies. Now some of these efforts could be brought to naught by the Commission's failure to have regard to unemployment or to consult about it. The Commission is now required to consult almost every Tom, Dick and Harry except on the issue of employment, which is vital to those who are so concerned about the situation in the United Kingdom as a whole and particularly in Scotland.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will speak again, to tell us if he is not prepared to accept the amendment—and he has made life much more difficult by not accepting it——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I assume that the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), who is reading a newspaper, is preparing a speech?

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was reading a report in my local newspaper headed
Tories scrap price watchdog service".
It states that the Tories of West Yorkshire are proposing to scrap price comparison surveys and review the future of consumer advice centres.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman catches my eye he will be able to elaborate whatever it is he has in mind. Unless he is preparing a speech, reading a newspaper is out of order.

Mr. Madden: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was noting the hypocrisy of the Opposition, which one finds so often when one hears about their concern about unemployment, because in the areas of the local authorities that they control they are sacking people who work for consumer advice centres.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has in no way indicated that he was in order in reading a newspaper.

Mr. Monro: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman is going on reading his newspaper, even on bogus terms, but that is his standard of courtesy to the House.
I was asking whether the Minister would return to the Dispatch Box to tell us what machinery would look at the unemployment implications of the Price Commission, if the Commission is not to consider the matter itself under the amendment. It is right to recall the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) about the profitability of industry in relation to the Price Commission's attitude. With taxation as severe as it is under the present Government, we must accept that a reasonable degree of profit must be made if the liquidity of any company is to be kept out of danger and there are to be adequate funds for investment. The Government must accept that in present circumstances we need to look not only at the Price Commission's attitude to unemployment but at the level of profitability that has such a direct link with employment in development areas.
I hope that the Minister will give particular emphasis to the small businesses and the self-employed, who could do much in providing new jobs if they were given the opportunity.
What impact will the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Economic Planning Department have in relation to discussions with the Commission on this vital matter? The Opposition can take enormous credit from the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) should be especially congratulated on his great survey of retail trade prices in various regions. He showed that this stubborn and incompetent Government should have given way two hours and 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Tim Renton: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) is not in the Chamber, because when she moved the amendment some time ago I was reminded of the words of King Henry V before the Battle of Agincourt:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks


That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Shakespeare clearly had no nationalistic feelings and I do not believe that he would have minded changing the words to read:
gentlemen in Britain now a-bed".
Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite look a little doubtful about the analogy, but it is appropriate that I should refer to St. Crispin's day because we are talking about the St. Crispin for many small businesses in this country. They are fighting for survival. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) made this point in an eloquent speech.

Mr. Salisbury: I am sure that if Shakespeare were alive today he would not be so bold or unwise as to refer to "gentlemen" in England for fear of falling foul of the Equal Opportunities Commission. He would have to say:
people in England now a-bed".

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has referred to another piece of legislation with which Shakespeare did not have to cope, but which is precisely the sort of legislation that is causing small businesses so many problems.
I am delighted at the merriment on the Government Benches. It shows that, after hours of torpor, they are beginning to wake up to the importance of the debate—which should carry on for some time yet, since it is about small businesses and unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke did not deal in depth with the crippling effect of capital transfer tax on small businesses. I often hear from owners of small businesses in my constituency that the best thing they could do would be to put the business into voluntary liquidation. That is the only way in which they can see some means of passing on assets to the next generation. Of course, they do not want to do that. They want to keep their busineses going. Time and again, then, they say to me "We are laying off labour. We used to have 10 or 12 men but now we have only three or four because we are concerned about the number of forms we complete and the amount of Government legislation that we have to worry about in respect of our employees. We

are concerned about our future profit levels. The only way that we can be certain of ensuring that we survive is to have a smaller work force."
7.15 a.m.
I am lucky enough to represent a constituency in one of the better-off parts of the country, but in my constituency there has been a great reduction in the average labour force in small businesses. That is why I find it extraordinary that the Minister is not accepting the amendment. In his opening remarks, which he will doubtless supplement in due course, he gave us no reason for not accepting the amendment. Is it pride? Is it obstinacy? The Labour Government have plenty of those characteristics. However, on this occasion they might have exhibited a little humility in the light of the unemployment figures that were announced yesterday and they could have gone along with the amendment.
The linkage between profitability in businesses and continuing employment has been brought out throughout the debate. This is a matter that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). It follows inevitably that labour is laid off when profit falls below a certain level and when owners of businesses become worried about profit margins.
I refer to the important article on profit margins in British industry that has been published in the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. I am sure that Labour Members will attach great credence to the article in the light of its source. The article states that there has been an alarming decline in pre-tax and post-tax rates of return in British businesses between 1960 and 1976. That is a period which straddles Labour and Conservative Governments. I am not trying to make a party political point. The fact is that the decline in the rate of return has continued and accelerated since 1972. As the chart in page 156 shows, the historic cost rate of return remained relatively constant between 18 per cent. and 20 per cent., but that is without allowing for inflation.
It is when the Bank of England turns to the chart that shows the real rate of return that the horrifying statistics emerge. I note that Labour Members do not seem worried about this. My right hon. and hon. Friends are worried


because we are well aware that if the rate of profitability in British industry continues to fall more companies will go bust. That means that unemployment will rise. It is as simple as that. That is why we think that Amendment No. 10 should be accepted.
The relevance of unemployment and its relationship to profitability in businesses is totally evident. The real rate of return pre-tax has fallen from about 12 per cent. in 1960 to below 4 per cent. now. What the Bank of England describes as the forward-looking post-tax rate of return has fallen from below 10 per cent. to about 4 per cent. It is only at that level because of the stock relief that the Chancellor belatedly introduced some two years ago. If it were not for that, the rate of return would be nil. In extrapolating the chart and moving it forward, the Bank of England can only assume that the stock relief will continue. If it does not—it cannot be certain about this—there is no question but that the rate of return to the average British company will become intolerable.
Allow me to read the conclusion of the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin article. It says:
For industrial and commercial companies as a whole the figures presented in this note do not suggest an encouraging outlook for investment.
This was published a few days ago. The article continues:
Rates of return are still extremely low, with little prospect of any marked recovery in the near future. Meanwhile the cost of capital, which until the early 70s moved broadly in line with the decline in the rates of return, subsequently seems to have risen sharply, though it has almost certainly, fallen during the early part of 1977. There are no doubt significant variations in the companies sector, e.g., companies heavily engaged in exporting may have been among the better placed and construction companies mainly concerned with domestic house building among the worst.
Here is the nub of the argument.
But rates of return will need to recover appreciably before a rapid or sustained rise in investment by the sector as a whole becomes likely. Gearing appears to be improving, as does cash flow, but only in nominal terms, and, as in the recent past much of the prospective improvement will accrue to the relatively small number of companies connected with North Sea oil development.
I do not think that the matter could be put more clearly or precisely by an unimpeachable source. It means that the

rate of return in British companies today is unacceptably low. It looks like continuing at that level. With that fact must go the appalling prospect that unemployment will rise even higher. Therefore I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 10.
I have greater doubts about Amendment No. 12. It is questionable whether the regional imbalances to which the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East referred can be ironed out by the Price Commission.
It is interesting to find a member of the Scottish National Party, which argues so strongly for independence for Scotland on grounds that most hon. Members think thoroughly fallacious and damaging, also arguing that there should be uniformity in prices throughout the United Kingdom. This seems to turn the Scottish Nationalist Party arguments for the independence of Scotland on their head—or the Members of the Scottish National Party want to eat their bread and keep it. If Scotland became separate and independent its economic pace would be much slower. There would inevitably be rises in food prices and many other basic prices in Scotland. I do not believe that the hon. Lady has thought this through clearly.

Mr. Iain Sproat: Did my hon. Friend notice that when the hon. Lady proposed this, in many ways, excellent amendment she left out the areas where Scotland was better off? Last week we heard from the Minister of State, Department of Energy that electricity was cheaper in every part of Scotland than in every part of England. The hon. Lady failed to mention that the average male manufacturing wage in Scotland now is higher than the average in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was a careful selection of facts which was not borne out by the reality of the picture covering the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point.
I have some sympathy with and an interest in what the hon. Lady said. I am lucky to visit the Hebrides once or twice a year. I always shop at the "Co" when I go there. Indeed that is practically the only shop available. The basic prices for such commodities as


milk, bread, vegetables—apart from tomatoes, which are grown on the island—are very much higher than on the mainland. The "Co" is the largest retailer in the United Kingdom, and should be able to give the benefits of bulk buying, but people in the Hebrides are concerned that their standard basket must reflect a higher-than-average cost. That cannot be ironed out by Scotland's independence. One of our first inquiries in the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries after I became a member was into Mac-Brayne's and cost of passenger and freight-carrying from Oban and the other West Coast ports to the Hebrides. We found that a great subsidy is already given to that traffic to ensure that the regional imbalance is not even greater. The amendment would not achieve any real gain for these remoter areas of the United Kingdom, with which we are all concerned.
Finally, the Secretary of State is quoted in the News of the World for 27th February as saying:
I do not want my policy to prevent profit, full stop. I want it to encourage profit to be used for socially desirable aims. That is one of the beauties of this scheme—its flexibility.
That is the Government's only interest. But profits which the Government decide are socially desirable will never lead to the industrial investment that we all want to see. No manufacturer can know whether his investment will be classed as socially desirable. His only criterion for deciding to make his investment is that it should be decently profitable over a period. It is just that criterion which is not available under the Bill.

Mr. Hastings: My hon. Friend drew a fascinating analogy between the plight of the small business man and the plight of the English before Agincourt. Would he extend that analogy to cover another passage from the play, about Sir Thomas Erpingham:
Good morrow, old Sir Thomas Erpingham: A good soft pillow for that good white head Were better than
a debate on the Price Commission Bill?

7.30 a.m.

Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) has made a very good point. It will also be remembered that earlier King Henry,

when he heard that his cousin Westmorland did not wish to stay and take part in the battle, said:
He which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart; his passport shall be made, And crowns for convoy put into his purse.
I believe that we should bear that in mind. I suggest that he which hath no stomach to this fight, let him depart, his passport made, and let the rest of us go on debating this important legislation.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 217.

[For Division List No. 165, see c. 1623]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 238.

[For Division List No. 166, see c. 1627]

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph (c).—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Amendment proposed: No. 12, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
'(e) the function of carrying out, and of preparing a report in consequence of an investigation into the wholesale and retail trades of the reasons for the imbalance of pricing in the various parts of the United Kingdom and in pursuance of such a report of issuing guidelines and recommendations for the eradication of such an imbalance.'

Question proposed, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 238.

[For Division List No. 167, see c. 1631]

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) during the month of November in the year 1977 and the month of February,


May, August and November in each subsequent year, a report on the performance of the Commission's functions during the three months ending with the preceding month;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 63, in page 5, line 7 after 'subsection', insert 'within two weeks of its receipt'.

Mr. Fraser: As the bingo callers say, 13 is lucky for some, and I hope that Amendment No. 13 will lead to a spirit of amity, conciliation and expedition in our proceedings.
In Committee, the Opposition and some of my hon. Friends wanted the reports of the Price Commission to be published quarterly. When the Bill was published we had proposed that they should be annual, but I promised to study what the Opposition said, I have done so, and I have come to the conclusion that we should revert to quarterly reports.
I should like to meet the spirit of Amendment No. 63 as well, but I cannot. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth), whose amendment it is, asks that general reports of the Commission should be laid before the House within 14 days of their being received. The difficulty is not over the laying of the reports but over printing. It is not possible to guarantee that a general report could be printed within 14 days. How long it would take to print and therefore to make a general report available to the House would depend on the priorities at the time. At present it takes between 28 and 42 days for a general report to be printed and made available.
As for reports following investigations and examinations, the printing would be given priority and almost invariably the reports would be laid before the House within 28 days, because the House would have to have those reports in its possession to be able to take a decision on any order following the reports. I cannot promise the same priority for the general reports, which will be printed and laid before the House as soon as possible.
I hope that that disposes of the worries that might be in the hon. Gentleman's mind.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I welcome you back to the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, looking so bright and cheerful.
We also welcome the arrangement that the Minister outlined for the publication of quarterly reports, a matter that we pressed in Committee. The House should be aware that with the Price Commission in its new form, as provided in the Bill, the reports will have an additional importance. The Minister stressed that the reports on investigations would be printed within 28 days. I think that he will recognise that there have been substantial delays in the provision of the general reports in so far as they have been made available to the House. This may not be a matter of printing time as much as a matter of administrative time and approving the report.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind our anxiety that reports should be laid before the House as soon as possible. I can assure him that if the Government make such amendments in this way, a spirit of amity will prevail. We welcome the amendment and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford-shire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) will wish to recognise the points made by the Minister.

8.15 a.m.

Mr. David Price: I welcome the amendment. One of the most constructive parts of the work of the Price Commission has been its quarterly reports and one of the most important elements of those reports is not the detail about the number of cases investigated but the information about prices and cost trends. The Index of Retail Prices is a help, but, according to the balance of products measured, it is possible to get slight differences in indices and these can often be a problem in discovering prices changes at any given moment from the point of view of general policy or for action by firms and trade unions. The Commission's reports on trends in prices have been the most important part of its work, and I have found recent reports very useful. I hope that the Minister can assure us that this part of the quarterly reports will be continued by the new Commission.
The Minister referred to reports of investigations. He will recognise that


the new Commission will be doing investigations in greater depths and with greater freedom of action since it is tied not to a specific code, but to the general critera that we have been discussing for most of the night. It is, therefore, important that particularly the early cases should be explained in detail by the Commission because there will be built up a form of case law on how the Commission interprets the pretty wide criteria in Clause 2.
I hope that the Minister will give us an undertaking that the Commission, particularly in its early reports, will give as much information as possible about how it interprets the criteria and which of those it regards as most important. The Government have ensured on earlier amendments that the Commission will have wide freedom of action. It is important that it should give reasons for its decisions, particularly in the early cases, as clearly and precisely as it can.
If it is accepted that reports on individual investigations in the quarterly reports are added to the general views of the Commission on price trends, it should produce a gradually evolving view of the importance of various criteria, and this would be very helpful to industry and trade unions and everyone involved in the implementation of this legislation. I hope that the Minister will agree that these matters will be a permanent part of future Commission reports.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth: I am sure that the spirit of amity that now prevails is welcome to both sides of the Chamber, even if it may be only a brief interlude.
It is a constructive advance to recognise the need for the publication of quarterly reports, especially in the light of the developing role of the Commission and the new-found duties and functions that it will carry out. My concern has been to ensure that such information is presented to Parliament at the earliest opportunity. A matter that lies at the heart of many of our discussions is that we should ensure that Parliament itself participates to the full in any of the decision-making processes that are taking place and is fully cognisant of any investigations that are in course.
I observed from the Committee reports that there was some comment about the timing of previous reports in the past. It was said that they seemed to fall foul of the proper Question Time. I notice that departmental Ministers were especially enthusiastic about the current procedures of the House. They felt more than satisfied that Parliament was fully protected by the existing procedures and did not wish to impose any further or undue burdens upon hon. Members in discussing the actions of either the Price Commission or the Department.
For that reason I felt that it would be helpful if we had a tighter timetable for the presentation of the information. It seemed that a period of 15 days was appropriate. I understand from what the Minister has said that there may be practical administrative difficulties about that. I should like to feel that any delay is maintained purely at practical administration level and does not reflect an element of political manoeuvring.
I understand that that is a difficult question to put in those terms, especially if I ask for an assurance. It is only too clear that it is difficult to differentiate on some occasions between one thing and another within a whole range of options. For example, a report may not be received in time for the 15-day period to operate. My concern is that the House has the earliest opportunity to record the information and to makes it public. If the House is well aware of what is taking place, there is in turn the opportunity of debate and referral to the information in the reports and the functions of the Commission.
I fully accept the terms of amity offered by the Minister and I am happy to accept his assurances on that basis.

Mr. Richard Body: Before the spirit of amity gets completely out of control I feel that it should be recorded that the Minister of State seems to have wobbled about a great deal on this issue.
We understood at the beginning that the Bill was to include a provision for quarterly reports. When the Bill was published we found that it was to be an annual report. When my hon. Friends moved their amendment in Committee the Minister made a persuasive speech arguing against quarterly reports. One of the


reasons he advanced was that we cannot draw a fair comparison between the work envisaged for the future Price Commission with the one now in existence because of the abolition of cost controls. The hon. Gentleman gave us various other reasons.
The Minister has not explained why those reasons, which seemed valid at the time, are no longer to be supported. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) has supported the proposal on the basis that it will help to build up a body of case law, as it were. Surely that will be done in any event. We understand that the Commission will carry out some 40 or 50 investigations every year and will publish individual reports on them. We assume that they will be published as soon as they are ready and without delay so that the firms concerned, their customers and the public generally will be acquainted as soon as can be with the opinion and judgment of the Commission. Surely that will be a body of case law, as it were, something that will be continuing almost on a weekly basis if we are to have about 40 or 50 reports a year.
Therefore I suggest that this kind of quarterly report will not be a satisfactory means of monitoring what the Price Commission is doing. I wonder whether the Minister has consulted the Chairman of the Price Commission, who we understand has now been appointed, about what will manifestly be an added burden for him. The Minister said in Committee that he disliked this idea of a quarterly report because it would add to the work and place a burden upon the shoulders of the Commission. That is obviously so. The Minister shakes his head.

Mr. John Fraser: Frankly, I think that the time of the House is being wasted. I have accepted what the Opposition want. I do not see much point in going over ground which is now completely otiose and in the past.

Mr. Body: With every respect to the Minister, that is not good enough. He gave some persuasive reasons why he could not accept this amendment previously. He gave three reasons. But he has made no effort to explain why those reasons were no longer valid. Some explanation might be forthcoming as to why he now finds it necessary to contradict himself.
The proposal will result in added work being placed on the chairman, who must be primarily responsible for the contents of any report. I should have thought that the chairman designate might have been acquainted with this further burden that was to be put upon him.
The moral that must be drawn from this vacillation is that this Bill has been ill-considered. I hope that the Minister will not shake his head over this matter. Had he worked out what the Price Commission was to do it would not be necessary to wobble about, even on this issue, and say now that a quarterly report will be available. He must know that it would be proper and right for the Price Commission to publish information, almost on a daily basis if need be, about profit margins and other material that it is important for the public, customers and himself to know in connection with its investigations and monitoring. I understood that some of this information was to be published in any event. It is not clear now whether that will still be the case. Does it mean that as a result of this new decision, whereby there will be quarterly reports, it will no longer be necessary for the Price Commission to publish that information which the Minister, in rejecting the original amendment, said would be given? It would be helpful to know whether that decision still stands or whether it will be altered as a result of the amendment now being agreed.
I hope that there will be a further explanation from the Minister of State about this matter. It is not satisfactory that he should try to introduce at this late stage a spirit of amity and pretend that he is giving something away. It may well be that he is taking something away and not adding anything, if the Price Commission does not publish this information on a regular basis, as we understood would be done.

Mr. John Fraser: The House wanted two assurances. The first was on price trends. The Commission's reports already publish details of price trends. The contents of reports are a matter for the Commission, but it is likely that it will continue to provide that information. The second point—the interpretation of criteria—is more difficult as we are jealous to preserve the


independence of the Commission. It is not for my right hon. Friend or the Government to dictate to the Commission the contents and the nature of its reports and judgments. It is important to preserve independence of judgment. The Commission may prefer to let reports on individual investigations speak for themselves.
I undertake—I think that this is consistent with the independence of the Commission—to convey to the newly-appointed chairman-designate the wish of the House that as much information as possible about the interpretation of criteria should be given in the quarterly reports as well as the individual reports. There is then no clash between the Commission's independence and the views of my Department.

Mr. David Price: This is particularly important in the early months, because the régime and the ground rules are being changed. It is to everyone's advantage for the Price Commission to give as much information as it can without prejudicing its freedom of action.

Mr. Fraser: There is some diffidence—perhaps exaggerated—about the way the Bill will work in the early months. I do not want to pretend to dictate to the Commission how it should conduct its affairs. I undertake to convey this debate to the chairman and hope that he takes proper note of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

PROPOSALS TO INVESTIGATE PRICE INCREASES

8.30 a.m.

Mr. Parkinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 5, line 18, after 'Act', insert
'and after consulting with the person by whom the notice was so given and with any Government department appearing to the Commission to have a general duty of supervision over the industry concerned'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government Amendment No. 24 and Amendment No. 16, in page 5, line 20, at end insert—
'Provided that if, after any such consultations as aforesaid, it appears to the Commission that the circumstances mentioned in

subsection (5)(b) of this section prevail or would prevail if they gave such a notification, the notification shall not be made.'

Mr. Parkinson: The Commission activities are triggered off in two separate ways. Large companies in category 1 have to notify the Commission of their intention to raise a price and any investigation takes place under Clause 4. Smaller companies are subject to an identical procedure under Clause 5. We sought to introduce a safeguard to both clauses in Committee—that, before making a final recommendation, the Commission should consult the company which would be the subject of any investigation and the sponsoring Department of that industry. That might lead the Commission to the view that an investigation was unnecessary and save the taxpayer and the company substantial sums. We were successful in amending Clause 5 but not Clause 4, so the Bill is now inconsistent. There have to be consultations under Clause 5 procedure, but not under Clause 4.
Under the banner headline "Total Victory for the Union", the May edition of "The Licensee", the monthly newspaper of the National Union of Licensed Victuallers, described how after discussions, the Secretary of State decided that an inquiry he was planning would not be right and had amended its terms of reference. He found consultations useful. That would be a sensible thing for the Price Commission to do before making an irrevocable decision. The company might then be able to offer a satisfactory explanation.
There is a wealth of information about various industries in the sponsoring Departments. Therefore, it would seem sensible for the Price Commission to discuss with sponsoring Departments whether they could help in arriving at decisions.
I stress that once an investigation has been undertaken, it will be expensive for both the taxpayer and the company. Considerable work would have to be undertaken by the Commission on the books of the company and great expense would be incurred. We argue that, before making the irrevocable decision to incur that expenditure, in the interests of the taxpayer and the company the two consultations which I have outlined should take place.
We were successful in putting that procedure into Clause 5, but unsuccessful in putting it into Clause 4. The Government, showing an obduracy which was absent in a welcome fashion in the previous debate, said "We shall not listen to the Committee. We shall have our way. We shall reject the amendment which was made to Clause 5. In that way we shall produce consistency in the Bill.
We say that is not the right way to approach this matter. We suggest that our proposal is sensible, and we urge the Government to bring Clause 4 into line with Clause 5. Our amendments would effectively bring that element of consistency into the Bill.
Amendment No. 16 introduces a further sensible safeguard. What is the point of having an investigation into a proposed price rise if it is accepted that the company concerned will be below the profit safeguard level built into the Bill in the first place? Why waste public and company money on an investigation when the end result is acknowledged to be that the company will still be below the safeguard level? The whole investigation will prove to have been absolutely pointless.
In Committee the Minister accepted much of the argument on Amendment No. 16. He said that there could be exceptional cases where there would be no real need for an investigation to establish whether the proposed price rise was fair, but that it might reassure the public. The hon. Gentleman quoted coffee as an example. He said that if coffee prices were to go through the roof, then, although a company was being absolutely fair, it might reassure the public to have this investigation, despite the fact that at the end of the day the company would be below the safeguard level built into the Bill and that the price rise would go through.
We think that there are other, rather less expensive, ways of reassuring the public about those unusual situations. We do not think that the legislation should be drawn to cover those few extreme examples. It is nonsense for the Government, if they have not got the machinery to persuade people that coffee prices are to go up in a spectacular fashion, to institute an expensive investigation to tell people what they already know or could be told in a less expensive way.
We suggest that the Minister can demonstrate that the spirit of amity, about which we talked earlier, was not a temporary, transient thing. Here is a chance for the Government to say "Frankly, these three amendments would bring consistency into the Bill, they would in no way undermine it and they could very well save public and company money. Therefore, with the benefit of hindsight, we have decided that we were wrong to resist them in the first place and we now accept them." If the Minister were to say that, he would enhance his reputation as the reasonable member of the Prices and Consumer Protection Department's Front Bench team. I hope that he will do just that.

Mr. Tim Smith: It was with some regret that I was unable to speak in the last debate on Amendments Nos. 10 and12 because I had hoped to say something about the importance of employment in the context of the Bill. I had also hoped to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), who made a fine contribution to the debate. He referred to bacon and butter, both of which are important.
His speech led me to reflect on the remarks of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) who referred to a harvest festival by the Liberal Party, to celebrate the Lib-Lab pact, at which they will produce the fruits of the pact. I wonder whether they will include bacon and butter. I suspect that all that will be produced is 300 Labour cabbages and 13 Liberal lemons.

Mr. Freud: It is absolute nonsense to refer in that context to what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and I said about a harvest festival. My hon. Friend was speaking in another context about another part of the Bill. It seems unnecessarily pointless and rude at this time in the morning to make untrue remarks about my colleague.

Mr. Speaker: I should prefer to hear the Nunc Dimittis—
Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace".
Let us return to the amendment under discussion.

Mr. Smith: The amendment would impose upon the Price Commission mandatory obligation to consult before instigating an investigation into a price increase. The distinction between the Government and the Opposition is that we would introduce a mandatory obligation to consult the company, or enterprise concerned. Such a company would be either a category 1 enterprise, which would have pre-notified its price increase, or a category 2 enterprise, which would have notified the price increase subsequent to the raising of the price. It is important that the company should be consulted to ensure that there are no potentially damaging investigations and no misunderstandings at that stage. It is also important to ensure that there is a saving of taxpayers' money, if that can be achieved.
The Price Commission has been an expensive body to operate. I recall that when I worked as a professional accountant for an international firm in the City at the time that the Price Commission was established, one set of staff was hived off to the Government Department and another to the Price Commission. One lot of employers were advising the Government and another the Commission. It is important to save money where we can. The amendment will help to do that.
Money will also be saved by Amendment No. 16 because the same applies—more strongly if anything. It would be a complete waste of time to have any notification if the Commission could say at the time that the enterprise involved had not exceeeded its price levels.
8.45 a.m.
As I understand it, the Government have advanced only one argument in favour of the Bill as it stands. I know that the example of coffee was referred to in Committee. It seems to me that that is a particularly bad example if it is to be the best example that the Government produce of the argument that says that if there is a very large price increase there is a justification for doing all this work and the publicity involved. It is a bad example because most people know why the price of coffee has risen. It has nothing to do with the Government. As far as I can tell, no one has suggested that it has. It is to do with the very poor

crop of coffee in Brazil and the shortage of coffee, so the price has risen. People understand that, and I do not think that they necessarily believe that there has been any profiteering in coffee.
For example, during the recent election campaign in which I took part, I produced figures for a food shopping basket and I valued it at February 1974 prices and then at April 1977 prices. But I was not quite so silly as to include coffee, because I knew that people would know that coffee was an exceptional item. People know very well why the price of coffee has risen. If that is the best example that the Government can produce in support of the Bill as it stands, they have not made their case. I hope that they will accept the amendments.

Mr. David Price: I want to take up one aspect of the amendment that has not yet been touched upon. The phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) was
any Government department appearing to the Commission to have a general duty of supervision over the industry concerned".
I know that in theory the older of us were brought up under the old-fashioned idea of the collective responsibility of Government. That went not only to the Cabinet but throughout the Departments. Indeed, a very distinguished senior civil servant once put to me the phrase
the seamless robe of the Government Departments".
A lot has happened since then, not least that Government Departments have become rather larger. However, the Price Commission is not a Government Department in the ordinary sense of the term. Indeed, I suspect that the Government have been deploying the argument of the late Mr. Herbert Morrison over nationalised industries in relation to the Price Commission—namely, that it would be wrong for Ministers to interfere in detail and that they should not take personal or collective responsibility for the detailed work of the Commission, although obviously they would have overall supervision. I think that that would be a fair interpretation.
Therefore, it becomes important that the Commission should have a duty placed on it to consult sponsoring Departments. The degree to which a sponsoring Department matters to the


industry concerned varies enormously. 1 think that we all have experiences of industries and Departments where the relationship is very close and on a permanent basis, whereas with others, in normal circumstances, the relationship is distant. It also depends very much on the history of the industry and on how much in the past it has been Government controlled, and the like.
I therefore suggest to the Minister that it is important that this should be written into the Bill. I give the example, to illustrate my point, of his own Department. It is within the knowledge of the House that there is a certain boundary dispute, as it were, between his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the precise responsibilities over the food industry. Traditionally, the MAFF is a sponsoring Department for the food industry. Here I declare a very marginal interest in that one or two of the firms that I advise as a management consultant are in the food industry. I make no political point or criticism of the Departments. I am merely observing the fact.
The example there, of course, was that the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry had responsibility for prices and consumer protection and obviously claimed some locus in the matter of food. On the other hand, the Ministry of Agriculture is traditionally, for the producer, the sponsoring Department and is so regarded, not only by farmers and horticulturists but by the wholesale trade and retailers. As these amendments suggest, it is important that it should be made clear to the Price Commission that it should consult.
There is also the case which will be within the knowledge of the House, where an industry has been too frequently investigated. The Office of Fair Trading will be carrying on and the Monopolies Commission will also be there. It is the view of many of us outside the House as well as in that if one pulls up the plant to examine the roots, it does not grow as well as if one leaves it growing.
There are certain industries—one is brewing, because brewing has been investigated frequently in recent years—which are sensitive about prices because the public get more angry about beer prices than about many other prices. That is the sort of case where, if the Price Commission were minded to look again

at beer prices, it should discuss the matter with the Monopolies Commission which has looked at it, and with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which, by definition is responsible for the industry.
Some industries have a fluctuating demand which depends not so much on their own actions as on Government Departments. I take, for instance, firms supplying building materials. The fortunes of the housing programme were discussed recently. The industry is sensitive to changes in housing policy. It could well be that the sponsoring Government Department will seek a big increase in the housing programme or in office or factory building, in certain parts of the country. Firms are anxious about this. Perhaps in planning agreements they will have made arrangements with the sponsoring Department for rapid expansion. For the Price Commission to be totally independent and to be able to investigate without consulting the sponsoring Department would be a mistake.
It is within the knowledge of hon. Members on all sides of the House that there is a feeling among many firms that they are investigated too often. They ask rather for less legislation and bureaucracy. They ask to be given a better chance to get on with their jobs. But this should not be used as an excuse for the Price Commission not to look at industries. The second leg of the amendment gets that right by stating the duty of consulting the sponsoring Department. That is a perfectly reasonable balance which should recommend itself to the Minister.

Mr. Dodsworth: I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) had made in these amendments a reasonable, logical and practical proposal. It was surprising to find the inconsistency between Clauses 4 and 5.
When one looks at the Standing Committee Report on this point, one finds the Minister's reasons for not accepting an amendment in this form. He is concerned to preserve the independence of the Commission by not requiring a statutory consultation procedure, particularly with sponsoring Departments.
The sponsoring Departments have the closest possible association. If we look


at the record of what has happened so far, it seems that the evidence is all too clear. If one quotes from one of the Price Commission Reports, of not long ago, one will find it clearly said that
The power to control the nationalised industry prices both initially and subsequently is thus firmly vested, subject to specified conditions, in the Minister responsible and not in the Price Commission. The Price Commission's powers are limited and likely to be of little practical application".
What we have is the appearance but not the reality. If one wants to move from that generality to the practical experience of what has happened so far, the best example is that which has been quoted on a number of occasions in the previous debate—the price charged for gas. We had to press the Minister to publish that statement. It was not made until pressure had been exerted by this House. But that statement makes it clear that the Price Commission is considering imposing a restriction under Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 in relation to proposed increases.
The London Gazette, dated 5th April, stated:
the Secretary of State after consultation with the Price Commission and being satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which justify an intervention by him hereby, … consents to the implementation by the British Gas Corporation of the proposed increases for their financial year ending 31st March 1978.
The effect was that the whole procedure became a waste of time. We had a situation in which we had a report, investigation and a recommendation. Then we decided to ignore it. When the Minister says that he feels that we should not require a statutory consultation process, I have to ask what other sort of process is there. That underlines the need to lay down clear in this House exactly the sort of procedure we want to have started and followed. If such procedures are not specified, we can suspect—indeed, believe—that it will not happen at all.
We are here to represent the interests of consumers. We have heard a great deal about the interests of the consumer. The best way to protect them is to ensure that the work which takes place is done with the fullest consultation and that we specify the need for that consultation.
In those circumstances it seems to me that my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South has made a clear, practical case for the inclusion of the amendment to ensure that this consultation takes place, particularly with sponsoring Departments. From the record that exists at present, the case against the amendment does not bear full examination.

9.0 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: In opposing the first amendment, and in supporting Government Amendment No. 24, perhaps I can draw upon a precedent which ought to appeal to the Opposition since they made so much of it in previous debates. That is the precedent of references by the Director General of Fair Trading, or by my Department, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
There is not in the Fair Trading Act, and there has not been in monopolies legislation any previous statutory consultation between my Department or the Director General of Fair Trading or the firm concerned or the sponsoring Department. But no one has suggested that the Director General does not consult informally with both the firm or the sponsoring Department. I put that forward both as a precedent for not requiring a statutory procedure and as a precedent for showing how informal consultations do take place.
The second point that I make about the amendment is that in drafting the Bill we tried to restrict to as short a period as possible the time during which firms would be subject to an interim price increase and to a freeze on their prices. We have drawn that period short, 28 days plus three months' maximum for the investigation. If we were to introduce a statutory consultation procedure we would have to make some allowance for it in the time table. A proper consequence of the Opposition amendment would be that the period of freeze would be extended from four months to five months. The moment one introduces a statutory consultation procedure one must allow some time for it.
I assure the House about consultations with the firms. As far as it can, the Price Commission will have consultations before deciding on an investigation. That follows the precedent of the Monopolies Commission legislation.
I give the same assurance in relation to consultations between the Price Commission and the sponsoring Department. But I warn the House about the possible danger of introducing consultation procedures on examination of nationalised industry prices. We intend that the new prices legislation should bear equally on prices of nationalised industries as it does on prices of private industry. Having said all that we have about competition and monopoly, it should actually bear harder on the nationalised industries because they need more countervailing power than those exposed to the winds of competition.
I urge the Opposition not to insist that the Price Commission consults the sponsoring Department over price rises of products of the nationalised industries. If they do, and there is a rise in the price of gas or electricity, the Price Commission would be bound to have statutory consultations with the Department of Energy. If, subsequently, there was no investigation of the price rise, commentators would claim that there was an unholy deal between the Price Commission and the sponsoring Department. If statutory consultation existed and there were price rises in Post Office charges, which were subsequently not investigated, the same accusation would be made about the Department of Industry.

Mr. Tim Smith: I read the report of the Standing Committee on this point but I did not follow the logic of the argument. I understood the necessity for the Price Commission to maintain its independence, and the fact that this might be compromised, especially in relation to the nationalised industries. But no one is suggesting that consultation means participation. The Price Commission has to do no more than take account of the views of the sponsoring Department. It can then ignore them.

Mr. Fraser: It is a matter of impression. People sometimes can twist the facts. Also, if there were statutory consultation, time would have to be provided for it, and once statutory consultation is provided the legal question is raised whether it has actually taken place. That means that the period in which prices are frozen must be lengthened. It has worked with the Monopolies Commission, and I think that it will work satisfactorily in future under the provisions of the Bill.
On the safeguards provision, the Opposition are saying that if a firm can take account of the safeguards in no circumstances should there be an investigation. Now that the Conservatives have had the chance to examine the consultation document on safeguards they will see that the safeguards are more generous at the beginning of the investigation than at the end. The fact that the nature of the safeguards differs during and after investigation provides a reason why the safeguards themselves should not prevent a firm from being investigated. The circumstances in which a firm can take advantage of the safeguards in an investigation are extremely rare. In most of those cases the Price Commission would be wasting its time.
There are two circumstances in which a firm could claim the advantage of the safeguard. The first is that the firm itself is so inefficient as a result of a monopoly situation that it has to take advantage of the safeguards. That is possible. Some monopoly institutions can have a low level of profit and a comfortable life. It is possible that a monopoly would be able to take advantage of the safeguards. In principle that would not rule out an investigation.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does the scenario painted by the Minister apply to a nationalised industry?

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is asking whether a nationalised industry, which has the advantage of safeguards, would be immune from investigations. The answer is that it should not be immune.
I turn to the point about public interest. There may be circumstances in which there is so much public interest and public concern about a price rise that, notwithstanding the fact that safeguards apply, there should be an investigation. I beg Opposition Members not to see the Price Commission as a perpetual enemy or harasser of private industry. In many cases a firm following investigation and examination—as happened with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—will come out with a clean bill of health, and a good deal of public criticism may be disabused as a result of investigation. One should not rule out that possibility. The circumstances in which safeguards and investigations apply at the same time


will be rare, but I would not rule out that possibility on some occasions.

Mr. Rhodes James: I feel that I should ask for the indulgence of the House once more since I am appearing at the Dispatch Box for the first time.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the Minister of State and also to the points made by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson). I would remind the Minister that we spent some time on these matters in Committee.
The principal point that concerns us is the requirement to statutory mandatory consultation. That still remains the difference between us. I regret this because a spirit of amity has now crept into the Chamber. We feel strongly about this point since it relates to the position and credibility of the Commission and to the value of the Bill.
Although the assurances we have received from the Minister of State and the Secretary of State are acceptable, we return again and again to the question, "Why cannot these assurances, if sincerely meant, as we know they are, be included in the Bill?" We are extremely unhappy that the Government are proposing to eliminate the modest advance in Committee where the provision was amended by eight votes to six. But the present situation is that there is a substantial anomaly between Clauses 4 and 5. Our answer is to amend Clause 4 so that it will fit in with Clause 5. The Government take a wholly different view, whereas we retain our view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ash-field (Mr. Smith) has made a debut which many of us would envy, and we congratulate him. Although accountants in this House are a small breed in numerical terms, no fewer than three took part in this debate—of whom I am not one.
The Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South what consultations can be guaranteed other than those set out in the Act. The Minister replied on the same lines as he did in Committee. As a man of common sense, the Minister will know that the Commission will be com-

posed of people of integrity and responsibility. Is he suggesting that consultation will invariably take place and that there is no need to write that into the Bill? If that is indeed the case—and I am sure that it will be so—I do not see why a similar amendment to that carried in Clause 5 should not be adopted in Clause 4.
I come finally to a point that goes beyond these amendments, although the amendments reflect the problem that concerns us all. We wish to retain the independence of the Commission but we are increasingly concerned—and we have expressed this view before—that the powers of the Commission and the Secretary of State are rather too wide and too general for our comfort.
For those reasons, although I express thanks to the Minister for the characteristic courtesy and care with which he has answered these points, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 236.

[For Division List No. 168, see c. 1633]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 5, line 20, at end insert:
'stating their reasons and indicating to which matters listed in section 2(2) of this Act they have in particular had regard in forming their opinion'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 75, in Page 9, line 4, Clause 6, at end insert—
'(d) to include in their report an indication as to which of the matters listed in section 2(2) of this Act they have in particular had regard in preparing that report.'

Mr. Baker: I seem to recall at about 4 o'clock this morning trying to support with enthusiasm the motion that we should adjourn and report progress. I and my hon. Friends who spoke in support of the motion could not persuade the House to do that. In its wisdom the House decided to continue. Perhaps that is just as well because if the House had adjourned it would not have had the pleasure of hearing me move this set of amendments.
It is a long time since I have addressed the House at this hour in the morning. The last occasion I remember doing so was when we had experimental——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order if I were to deny myself the pleasure to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is a free agent, so he can do what he chooses. The hon. Gentleman is missing a chance that occurs only once in a decade of hearing me speak at this late hour. The last occasion was when the House considered the Post Office Bill, which was introduced by Mr. John Stonehouse in 1968–69. At that time we had experimental morning sessions, which have now become a fashionable heresy in that one of the outstanding procedural reforms would be for the House to meet in the mornings and to finish earlier at night. I hope that hon. Members who have not experienced morning sittings before will have a little flavour of one this morning. They should realise that the principle of morning sittings should remain a heresy and that it is no way to improve the procedures of the House of Commons. We do not know whether we should miss the matins of a new day or the prolonged vespers of the old day.
The amendments, though important, are detailed. We are now getting down to the details that will affect companies and businesses which arc concerned with the provision of goods and services. They want to know how they will be affected by the operation of the new procedures of the Price Commission. Therefore, businesses will be concerned with our debates over the next few hours. The debates in the earlier part of the sitting dealt mainly with points of principle and important points of detail. Here we are coming to the operation of the Price Commission and to seeing how it works.
The mechanism which triggers off the process of investigations under the Price Commission is that those large companies that have to pre-notify price increases must continue to do so, whereas the smaller and medium-sized companies that do not have to pre-notify but just increase their prices will continue to do so. When either of those two events occurs the Price Commission will either

be told, or it will pick them up. It must then decide whether it should do anything. That is not the position now. It must now decide according to the provisions of an elaborate code.
The discretion that the Price Commission has at its disposal to say whether it should do anything is limited. In future the occurrence of a price increase event will trigger off the investigatory mechanism. One of the areas of confusion for business and industry is that there need not be a specific price increase. It need not be an increase of over 5 per cent. or an increase within six months of the last increase. It need not be a monthly increase in the prices of seasonal commodities or something of that kind. It applies to any price increase. That creates the first element of uncertainty. Companies do not know from that alone whether they will be investigated.
It is clear that the Price Commission, even with its large staff of 650, cannot possibly examine all price increases of all companies right across the country. There must be an element of selectivity and choice. These two amendments are concerned with what criteria the Price Commission should use in deciding whether to investigate a price increase.
Certain criteria are laid down in Clause 2. It is the contention of the Opposition that those criteria—when it comes to deciding whether a company should be investigated and whether the known price increase event should be investigated—are neither clear nor precise enough.
The criteria in Clause 2 are exceedingly wide. I do not object to them for that reason. The Government have fulfilled the undertaking they gave in the consultative document that before initiating an investigation the Price Commission would have to take into account all these items such as the need to recover the costs incurred in efficiently supplying goods and services and in maintaining the value of the relevant businesses. We had a debate on that. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) treated us to a canter through O-level economics at about 1 o'clock this morning.
There is also
the desirability of encouraging reductions in costs by improvements".
But any business man going through this list of criteria would find it difficult to


know whether his particular price increase would be subject to an investigation. There is that degree of obscurity.
9.30 a.m.
I do not believe that that degree of obscurity should continue. Investigations are undertaken by the Monopolies Commission only when there is a prima facie case of a monopoly existing, when it can be clearly seen that certain companies are operating in a monopolistic, semi-monopolistic or oligopolistic situation. The Director General of Fair Trading cannot say "I think that is a monopoly. Let us have a look at it." Certain criteria must be applied. That is one of the basic principles of administrative law and general law in our country.
That is not the case under this legislation, and this is one of its most unsatisfactory features. Hon. Members talked glibly during the night of combining the Price Commission and the Monopolies Commission. There is something to be said for that, but only if the criteria for investigations by the Price Commission are much more clearly defined, so that a company knows whether it is likely to fall within an investigation, whether its particular practices would make it liable to an investigation.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that when the Commission decides to investigate a price increase it not only tells the Secretary of State—it must do that, under Clause 4—but gives the reasons, that it says which criteria in Clause 2 have led it to believe that a company should be investigated.
The Commission will write to the Secretary of State and its letter will become an open document. The company will be able to make it open, and in the Commission's published report it will be seen. The exchange of correspondence, or the reasons for the reference, could be specified. Therefore, for the first few months and years of operation, for as long as this was the system, one would be building up a series of precedents, building up case law, as it were, so that companies would be able to know why one of their competitors or a company in an associated industry was investigated.
The only guidance that I can find is in the existing Price Commission reports.

The present Price Commission operates an entirely different system of allowable costs with a detailed code. We are told that the new system will be much less burdensome to industry from the point of view of administrative costs. But I am advised by some large companies that that will not be so. Their preliminary assessment of the work load they are likely to undertake under the new system is that they are likely to be involved in more administrative overheads in operating the new system.
Representations have been made to me and several of my hon. Friends that the new system, although it has the superficial appearance of being simpler, will be more burdensome because it requires companies to provide information in a rather more detailed and broken-down way. The companies that have made representations are not small traders but substantial companies. One of them has entered a planning agreement with the Government, so I dare say that that information has been passed to the Government as a result of the planning agreement, and I hope that the Minister will take its comments on board.
The only flicker of guidance one can find about the sort of criteria that the new Price Commission will use in its investigations is to look at the sort of criteria that the existing Price Commission uses, not in the main bulk of its work, which is the administration of the Price Code, but in its own investigations.
It is interesting to look at the Price Commission's last two reports, especially the sections dealing specifically with the five or six separate investigations. The investigations that the Price Commission undertakes now, under its investigatory powers under the 1973 Act, will be similar, though in the nature of things less elaborate, than those which it will be undertaking in future.
I turn to the last but one Price Commission report and look at the five investigations carried out and reported on. The first concerned diabetic foods. The Commission states:
Here the problem was that the diet of a diabetic person is inherently more expensive, because he has to avoid high carbohydrate foods such as cereals and potatoes, while special diabetic products cost more to make and are not sold in economy sizes in super markets.


The criterion there was that a specific group in society had to pay rather more than others because of their illness.
The report is interesting. It
confirmed that the prices of diabetic foods were usually higher than ordinary foods, because of the higher cost of production".
That was not perhaps a blinding shaft of light. One could perhaps have picked that out from the nature of diabetic foods.
The second investigation was interesting, too. The Price Commission undertook to investigate food prices in outlying areas. This point was touched on briefly in an earlier debate.

Mr. John Fraser: Very briefly.

Mr. Baker: But so well. I think that the hon. Gentleman is sitting on the wrong side of the House to appreciate this point.
That investigation was triggered off by public concern about the price of food in outlying areas. The great paraphernalia of the Price Commission was therefore geared up again and, sure enough, the Commission came to the conclusion:
The difference was greatest in the North of Scotland.
It also discovered—again, the value of these reports is highlighted by the conclusions—that
The cost of transport to outlying areas was a factor in higher prices.
We are trying to draw out of these investigations the same criteria, and it is difficult to do that. The only investigation which has a clear criterion was that into sanitary towels and tampons. The report states:
The Commission drew attention to the price-relationship between towels and tampons. The market for tampons is dominated by two companies".
Clearly here was a semi-monopolistic or limited competition area. I thought that the Commission came to a sensible conclusion. It recommended an immediate cut of 10 per cent. in the recommended retail price. The criterion there is clear. It ties in with one of the criteria in subsection (2).
The other reports are not of much guidance. I do not know what triggered off the investigation into the price of fish. It happened at the time when the Secretary of State had other ministerial res-

ponsibilities concerned with the cod war and so on. There was probably a feeling that the price of fish was very high in the shops and that, therefore, there should be an investigation. That is the kind of temptation to which Governments invariably fall victim. It was not a very effective report.
There was an investigation into small packs. I suspect that this was triggered off by the consumer movement. The report states that
it is well known that goods bought in small packs often cost proportionately more than larger sizes because the expense of making and slocking them is higher".
The Commission looked in detail into 16 products, but it—
found no evidence of unreasonable profits".
Therefore, some of the work of this Commission has been helpful.
There was then an investigation into small electrical household appliances. The Commission found that trade was very competitive.
Two subsequent reports have been published. One again tries to find the criteria on which they were conducted. A report on funeral charges has been published. I have never been able to decide why the Commission decided to examine funeral charges. The Commission found no evidence of the kind of abuse that was widely published in North America. Members of the Commission had clearly read Evelyn Waugh's "The Loved One".
One still does not know why it decided to study funeral charges. They must be competitive. If hon. Members picked up their local papers and turned to pages six or seven they would find a mass of advertisements for funeral directors, who are usually associated with small builders because business is not all that regular. One has only to spend half-an-hour looking up these funeral directors to realise that price competition operates. The Commission investigated these charges because it received complaints from several hon. Members and 12 members of the public. It certainly could not have received complaints from dissatisfied customers.
I wonder whether it is correct use of State money to investigate such a business, because the facts spoke for themselves. The profits of coffin manufacturers appear to be modest. It is nice to


know that the cost of dying at least is not rising as much as the cost of living.
Two investigations, including one on brewing, have not yet resulted in reports. Another investigation involved soft drinks sold on licensed premises. This clearly was an area of limited competition. The report recommended certain reductions in prices.
It is difficult to find out from all this why the Price Commission decides to look into some matters and not into others. Under the existing régime that is bearable because over a period of one year it might examine only four or five sections of industry. In only one or two cases has it been limited to a small number of firms. But in future the day-to-day work of the Commission will be to undertake investigations. The Minister owes it to British industry to make it clear under which circumstances certain parts of it will be investigated. British industry needs certainty, stability and the knowledge about where it stands to enable decisions to be made on pricing and investment programmes.
There is no doubt that the system of investigation in the Bill will create uncertainty and instability. Companies will not know when they are to be investigated. Some prices will be investigated and some will not. I have no doubt that some will be investigated when the Minister is subjected to pressure from his Back Benches. Some increases will be investigated because the particular Minister has a fad about the price of certain goods. Some will be investigated because the wives of Ministers have said over the weekend "Did you know so and so?" I understand that already the wife of the new Chairman of the Price Commission, pictured in yesterday's edition of the Daily Express, is hard at it showing her husband the price of soap suds or something. This is the sort of quixotic way in which investigations will be initiated. I do not believe that one should establish a system of investigations that depends upon quixotic chance.
9.45 a.m.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman what thought he has given, if any, to the criteria that will be used. He knows that they will not be the criteria under Clause 2. I have heard a rumour that there may

almost be a random selection by the Price Commission. As it cannot possibly investigate all price increases, it will say "Right. In the next month we shall investigate 100 price increases where the increase is over 5 per cent."—or perhaps 1,000. It may say that there will be 200 investigations in the South-East, 200 in the North-West, 100 in the South-West, and so on—almost taken by random sample, in the way in which pollsters select the numbers and types of people they use in their opinion polls.
I emphasise how vague and uncertain this is. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to be more specific. If it is to be something more than a random sample, what is it to be? Will it concern companies that frequently raise their prices, or companies that operate in certain types of fast-moving consumer goods? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will clarify this matter.
However, in the absence of clarification in the Bill as it now stands, we are pressing that when the Price Commission decides to investigate a price increase, for either goods or services, it not only tells the Secretary of State that it wants to investigate the particular price but gives the specific reasons—namely, for instance, that there has been a price increase in the product of 5 per cent. within the last three months, or that the Commission thinks that the profits may be unreasonable—if it could ever define what that is—or that there is a limited area of competition. Companies ought to know and not have only this rather vague quixotic Sword of Damocles hanging over all their business decisions and operations.
In Committee, the Secretary of State accepted the case that I have been putting forward. When I asked him how the Commission would operate, I put this question: suppose a company applies for a price increase of 15 per cent. and the Commission says that it will investigate that increase, and that entails investigating the operations of the company because all the factors affecting its operations must be taken into account. Then let us suppose that, threatened with the whole panoply of a full investigation, the company says to the Commission "We would like an increase of 15 per cent. but we could get by with one of 12 per cent. If


we have one of 12 per cent., will you then still investigate us?"
That is a form of bargaining which in the American courts would be called plea bargaining. The Minister said that he thought that that was quite likely to be the procedure that would develop. That, of course, does not make the Commission so much a Price Commission as a mart, where one puts in one's bid and then discusses it with the Commission to see what it will bear, and indeed, this increases the uncertainty even more.
It seems to be absurd, even at this early or late hour—whichever way one likes to look at it—that British industry should have this degree of uncertainty thrust upon it at the very time that the Government, through their industrial strategy—if those two words mean anything—are trying to increase the confidence of British industry, trying to get British industry to invest more, to expand more, to build more factories and to expand export sales. While all this is taking place on the one side, on the other side we are saying "We are setting up a whole machinery to interfere and make your business life much more difficult and confused". The Secretary of State will know that I am not against the Commission looking into things, but if it is to work fairly, it must work by criteria laid down in machinery by which the Commission is to undertake investigations.
That is why we are saying that when an investigation is undertaken, the Secretary of State must be told why it is to be undertaken so that, as the years and months go by—and it is only months in the case of this Government—a series of precedents will be established, a series of guidelines, and a body of case law will emerge, which industry will be able to look at, to turn to as a reference, so that it knows when a particular price increase will be examined.
That is why I hope the Government will realise that these amendments will be helpful and are needed by British industry. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps inevitably, perhaps not, this has turned into a debate about the criteria which will govern the behaviour of the Price Commission when it investigates specific price increases.
Before I turn to the amendments specifically, I must do my best to answer the more general questions put by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). He says, with amazing assurance, that we are all aware that whatever those criteria are by which they are judged, they will not be those in subsection 2. That is absolutely wrong. The criteria by which they will be judged will be strictly those in subsection 2. Those are the criteria which the Commission is required by law to take into account.
Because of that, we constructed the criteria as carefully as we could and then improved on them. We were the fortunate recipients of the advice of others and made the criteria simultaneously more extensive and more precise, because there is a statutory duty on the Price Commission, when it decides to look at companies or to investigate prices, to probe or to freeze, to judge their decisions against the criteria in Clause 2.
Inevitably the hon. Gentleman drew a parallel between the operation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Price Commission in the conduct of investigations. I am always glad when that parallel is drawn because it is the appropriate one. What I have been failing to understand is the degree of difference in operating techniques to which the hon. Gentleman referred as the reasons for defining the criteria even more, so producing even more precise criteria.
The hon. Gentleman will recall, from his ministerial days, that the Government policy is crude and arbitrarily clear financially. Mergers have to be of more than £5 million, disregarding the special case of newspapers mergers. That is the size under which we cannot investigate and that is exactly what is said in respect of the Price Commission. It is a matter of size first, and both bodies then go on to exercise discretion. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that discretion is exercised by the Director General of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, against which the wider criteria are used than we have laid down in the Bill. Both bodies, the Director General—if I may call him a body—and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, are required to take account of the public interest and, by any standard, that is a very wide criterion. In the Bill we have tried to give a degree of certainty


to make the whole operation a good deal more precise.
The hon. Member for St. Marylebone is right to compare the two institutions, but the conclusion to which he ought to come is that in this Bill we have done something a good deal more precise and a good deal more reassuring.
We shall do so, of course, on the information supplied by the notifying companies. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about that. He said that he had heard that what we asked for by way of information would be even more onerous than the present information requirement concerning cost and margin control.
I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. We produced information some months ago, and I confess without embarrassment that we showed it to those with whom we negotiate—the CBI, the FDIC and the Retail Consortium—and we merely allowed them to rewrite it for us. I would not claim for a moment that the three industrial and commercial institutions with whom we negotiate are wholly in agreement with every detail in the Bill. But the initial information was something that they helped to construct and about which they are wholly satisfied.
The other reassurance—[Interruption.] I find it difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions when he is talking not only to one of his hon. Friends but to several simultaneously. I am literally trying to answer the hon. Gentleman. It would be a great help if he listened to the points that I am struggling to make.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has my undivided attention.

Mr. Hattersley: I am very grateful. The other criterion to which the hon. Gentleman referred was the criterion of case law. I agree with him entirely that this is a very important element. He must remember that many of his questions concerning the case law that I might lay down, or the Government might provide, are wholly inappropriate and that the case law will be established by the Chairman and the Commission.
One of the essential features of the new powers is that the initiative for price inquiries will be taken by the Commission itself. That is part of the Bill

written in at the request—I might even say the insistence—of industry. It feared that if the initiatives for price inquiries were made by me or by any other Minister in the Government there might just possibly be a political overtone, and that we might just possibly choose a sensitive item about which the hon. Gentleman was so concerned.
After my initial proposals were published I agreed that the initiatives should be removed from Government and placed in the hands of the Commission. It is not for me to lay down case law. It is for the Commission to do so. I hope it will be expected that the Commission will do so in a way which calms the fears of some sections of industry.
I must say, as I have said before, that now that the names of the deputy chairmen and chairman are known, the essential reassurance of the Commission is the appointment of members in whom industry can have confidence. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), since I announced the names of the deputy chairmen and the chairman in answer to him yesterday. If he puts down a Question some time next week he might get a similar response with regard to the names of the members. It is that body of people who must lay down the criteria establishing the case law. It would be quite wrong for me to do so within the terms of the Bill.
But now that the chairman has appeared in public and answered some questions, there are some things on which reassurances can be given.
10.0 a.m.
The hon. Gentleman quoted the Minister of State being asked whether the Commission would proceed on the basis of "15 per cent. suggested, and 12 per cent. accepted". I am not sure about that sort of bargain. But the chairman-elect told the newspapers yesterday or the day before—the days this week all seem to have merged into one another—that his certain hope was that he would proceed by discussion and negotiation with industry, rather than rigidly and automatically interpreting the legal powers. If that attitude can be interpreted as "15 per cent. suggested, and 12 per cent. accepted" so be it. That is the important thing to bear in mind.
Another error that the hon. Gentleman made was the comparison of the inquiries


that the new Price Commission will make with those made by the old Price Commission. There is no relationship between the two. The present Price Commission made its general inquiries on the initiative of the Secretary of State. Inevitably, many of my suggestions resulted from the enthusiasm, fears, and concern expressed to me by hon. Members and my constituents. That will not happen in future. The new procedure will be similar to that which applies to Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The forms will come in, examination will be made, and the results measured against the criteria. Those which seem to give cause for concern will be examined in a wholly objective fashion.
Because of this I do not believe that there is a necessity for either of the amendments which have been the coat hangers on which the hon. Member has hung his elaborate garment. There is no need for the Price Commission to describe, or be obliged legally to describe, the reasons for a move towards an interim investigation. Its method of approaching this is already limited by the criteria and in extreme cases by my veto, if I find myself under pressure which leads me to believe that the Commission is behaving in an unreasonable fashion. The Commission is obliged to behave reasonably, and if it acts in an arbitrary fashion the courts are the final redress.
In this initial period there is no doubt that the investigated company will know which criterion is giving the Commission concern, and its reason for pursuing the investigations. There is no way for the Commission to pursue an investigation without describing its interest to the firm concerned. This job cannot be done blind. The Commission must write to the Company and tell it that it wants certain information. In the request for information there will be a clear statement of the criterion under which the investigation is being conducted.
The same rule applies to Amendment No. 75, which is being taken with No. 14. Clearly when the report is made, since the Commission is obliged, if it recommends a prolonged freeze to me, to give reasons for that recommendation, there will be no doubt about the powers and the criteria under which the Commission is operating.
I understand the hon. Member's fears, but I believe that they are wholly groundless. A wholly reasonable House of Commons would regard the amendments as unnecessary. If it does not, I must, partly because of the drafting and partly because the amendments are unnecessary, ask my hon. Friends to vote against them.

Mr. David Price: The Secretary of State drew a comparison between the operations of the new Price Commission and the operations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. He will acknowledge that at the beginning of an investigation there is an important difference of kind and not simply of degree between the actions of those two bodies.
The first task of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under monopolies legislation is factual—namely, "Is there within the meaning of the Act a monopoly?" That is not an easy question to solve. It is a matter of defining the market area and also of defining the product area and how far there are subsidies. It is a matter of fact. If the Monopolies and Mergers Commission discovers as a matter of fact that there is not a monopoly situation, that is the end of the matter and it will not proceed further. If it discovers that there is a monopoly, it comes to consider the second question—namely, whether the monopoly is, in its judgment, contrary to the public interest.
If it is decided that that monopoly or certain features of its monopolistic position are contrary to public interest, the Commission comes to its third task, which involves putting recommendations to the Secretary of State. I repeat that there are three elements in that situation, but the first is purely factual. When we come to consider the actions of the new Price Commission the first question "Have there been price increases?" is not for the Commission to determine. That is the reference point.
The difficulty that arises is that in an inflationary situation there are bound to be some price increases in the vast majority of products and services. One might argue that a price increase up to the level of the common level of inflation would not be a cause for great investigation, but that does not fall to the Price Commission. When there have been price increases, it has to determine whether


to investigate. What it is not able to do is to express a view on the facts at this stage. The fact that there has been a price increase is sufficient reason, whereas with a monopoly investigation it has to determine whether there is a monopoly. There is an important difference.
The Price Commission, coming to that second tier of investigation, has to decide whether there have been price increases and whether it should investigate. The amendment suggests that the Price Commission should state its reasons for deciding that there should be an investigation. The whole range of product, even those above the de minimis rule, in an inflationary age will be many. Guidance should be given why a firm has been selected for investigation—and that is all the amendment seeks to do. The third question, with which we need not deal, is what the recommendations are to be once an investigation has taken place.
In Committee the Minister of State said:
In practice, the Price Commission will try to inform the firm to be investigated of its prima facie reason for coming to the conclusion that there ought to be an investigation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee "B", 12th May 1977; c. 217.]
It seems to me that there is little between us on this matter. The Secretary of State apparently agrees with the order of things, but he seems to object to spelling out what we propose in our amendment. I do not see much here that he could find objectionable, whereas we can see considerable virtue in having this written into the Bill. It ties in with the point made earlier that in the early stages of the operation of the new Price Commission it is important for criteria to be given so that case law may be built up and so that industry, the trade unions and the general public know how the Commission will act.
I cannot believe that there is anything of substance between us and I should have thought that by this time—10.10 a.m., when we have been going on the Report stage for some time—this would be a reasonable amendment for the Government to accept.

Mr. Tim Smith: I should like to make some brief observations about important matters that are encapsulated in these amendments. I wish to refer to an obser-

vation that was made by the Secretary of State about the extent to which the previous Price Commission and the reports that it made were relevant to the proposed Price Commission and the reports that it will be making. The right hon. Gentleman said that the reports of the previous Price Commission were made by order of the Secretary of State but that in this case, in order to strengthen the independence of the new Commission, the Commission itself would initiate investigations.
However, there will be a parallel with the sort of unwritten code that arose under the previous practice. In practice there were five different stages with codes and revised codes. Firms of accountants and professional advisers built up their own sort of case law. However detailed the code, some questions must always be left to the discretion of the Commission. It is helpful for those involved in trying to determine matters fairly if a case law can be built up.
I want to raise some other important points of principle. It must be recognised that administration law must apply to such a case because the Commission is a quasi-judicial body. It should therefore, for example, be possible for the principle of audi alteram partem to apply, and for us to ensure that nobody should judge his own case.
Another important part of administration law is that when a decision has been taken by a quasi-judicial body the reasons should be stated, because if they are not, it makes it more difficult to challenge the decision.
I notice from the report of the Committee that the Minister said:
if the Commission mounts an investigation on a wholly unreasonable basis, its action will be open to challenge in the courts."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B; 12th May 1977, c. 214.]
We should not welcome it and one does not run a country fairly on court cases. However, that is a longstop.
It is important that we should be given details to widen the basis upon which one can challenge a decision. Reasons, built up over a period of time, would give guidance and set precedents so that a series of customs will accrue. We said during the debate on Clause 2 in Committee that the matters that can be taken into account on Clause 2 vary greatly. It


would help in the elimination of uncertainty if people were told not only the reasons for arriving at a decision but the criteria under Clause 2 that had been referred to. It would then be possible for case law to be built up. That would be helpful to everyone involved in trying to pilot the new Price Commission in the most efficient manner.

10.15 a.m.

Mr. Tim Renton: Unfortunately I was not present in the Chamber to hear the Minister's first few remarks. However, I listened with care to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) when he introduced the amendments. My hon. Friend should speak more frequently at 9.20 a.m. My hon. Friend did not know whether he was in a late vespers or early matins mood—but some of us may have a Nunc Dimittis feeling—but he rang with all the clarity of a matutinal bell.
I should like to take issue with my hon. Friend because he complained that the Price Commission had investigated the cost of funeral services in this country. Although, as a result of the Commission's investigation, the Minister said that there was no evidence that they were making excessive charges, it was good that the Price Commission undertook that investigation. There was a general fear that whatever the initial price quoted for a coffin over the telephone, charges were added once the client was in the grip of the funeral parlour and crossed the threshold on behalf of the bereaved relative. All sorts of additional services were virtually forced on him that he was hesitant to decline. It was good that the inquiry was undertaken.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone of Jessica Mitford's important book "The American way of death" in which she refers to the experience of a friend who arranged a funeral on behalf of her brother-in-law. She went to a "reputable" undertaker and, in the interests of saving the widow expense, chose the cheapest redwood casket and was quoted a suitably low price. However, the salesman called her back and said that the brother-in-law was too tall and did not fit into the cheap casket. He would have to go in a bigger one—costing 100 dollars more. The woman objected and the salesman

said that the undertakers would use the cheap casket, but they would have to chop off her brother-in-law's feet. The image of that sort of bizarre and macabre experience haunts the undertaking profession and it was right that the Commission should have held its inquiry.
The amendments are eminently reasonable. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) said and I am sorry that the Secretary of State feels unable to accept the amendments. As I returned to the Chamber, I thought that I heard the right hon. Gentleman saying that the cost to major companies of the new procedure would, in his judgment, be less than the present cost.
From comments made to me about discussions on the pre-notification scheme, all the indications are that the cost to major companies will be considerably greater. We have been told that in the pre-notification procedure it will be necessary to give details about return on capital, profit margins, return on home business and forecasts for four quarters ahead. This is likely to lead to very much higher costs than at present. Last year, ICI published a figure of £500.000 as its cost of meeting the administration of the Price Code. Clearly it is important—if prices are to be kept down—that the new code should not add to manufacturing costs. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could give an assurance that it is the intention of the Bill to reduce the administrative work load substantially rather than to add to it. That would help the discussions over the consultative document.
I do not understand the Secretary of State's reluctance to accept the amendment. The consultative document foreshadows such a degree of contact between the Commission and industry. We expected that it would follow naturally that the reasons for undertaking an inquiry should be published. Paragraph 4 states that the
Commission will wish to consult industry and clarify the ways in which it will exercise its powers on such matters of concern to industry as".
The right hon. Gentleman then lists a number of matters, but two or three are as follows:
the extent to which contact can take place between the Commission and a firm before


the latter is selected for investigation, so that the firm knows the reasons for an investigation being consider; the need for consultations with the firm about the factual content of a report before it is finalised".
If there is to be this degree of communication between the firm and the Commission, surely it follows logically that the reasons and the facts should be published. If they were published, it would give a degree of assurance to other companies that the inquiry had not been undertaken for frivolous or unnecessary reasons.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a general degree of disquiet in British industry about these investigations, about the level of costs and about the degree of time and work that will be involved. If the hon. Gentleman undertakes to publish the reasons that we request in the two amendments, it will go a long way to calm down that degree of disquiet.
I end by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of an advertisement that appeared in a Peterborough evening newspaper last night. The right hon. Gentleman might not have had time to read it because he has been busy, but over a box number of the Peterborough evening newspaper there is an advertisement from an anonymous business man who says that he has spent the past 15 years building up his firm and that he is now so exasperated with the mountains of paper work that has been thrust on him by the Government that he wishes to give his business away free. He writes:
Due to the extra work caused by continuous stupid Government legislation I am now more civil servant than businessman, a situation that is quite unacceptable and must end. In view of the fact that in these recessionary times it would probably be impossible to sell my company, I propose to give it away. The person to whom 1 give my company will require no capital or other financial outlay, merely the guts to walk in and take the opportunity of a lifetime. Basic qualifications are the preparedness to work 60 hours a week, some engineering or sales experience and a clear appreciation that no British Government will ever have any time for a small firm.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It seems that the hon. Gentleman has all the qualifications to apply for the business.

Mr. Renton: If that means that you are inviting me to apply for the Peterborough Hundreds, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must take up the matter for considera-

tion. The advertisement appeared in bona fides. It is a tragedy for British industry that such an advertisement should appear anywhere in the country.
The worry about the Price Code that I have mentioned is deep within British industry, and it is important that the two amendments to which we are now speaking are accepted by the Government.

Mr. David Crouch: I make a short intervention in this short debate. I spent most of last night in the Library searching for the Peterborough newspaper but I did not find it. I wish that I had done so. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) has drawn our attention to it. However, that is not the point that I wish to take up. My intervention is the first that I have made on Report and I hope that I may have the opportunity to make further interventions.
I was surprised that the Secretary of State reacted as he did to what has been described as a reasonable amendment—indeed, "eminently reasonable" by my hon. Friend the Member for East-leigh (Mr. Price). These are not merely reasonable amendments. In my opinion they are necessary amendments. I am surprised that the Government do not consider that they are necessary. They add something to the Bill; they do not take anything away. They add a restriction to be applied by Parliament on a new arm of the Executive that has emerged in recent years. In fact, many new arms of the Executive have arisen in recent years under both Administrations. We have commissions and various controlling bodies. All we are seeking in this debate is that these two amendments, which add a little extra restriction, be accepted, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to turn them down.
This is a necessary control on this arm of bureaucracy. I am not against bureaucracy, but I am in favour of controls on bureaucracy. It is strange that the Secretary of State does not think it necessary that the Price Commission should state its reasons in the first instance. If we are talking of case law and history and understanding the working of the Price Commission, surely industry wants to know what is in the mind of the Commission as it starts its new life. It would help if industry could see the standards on which the Commission is to work, the


way it was being guided in its own councils, what is driving it to make interventions and to seek to call in a concern and establish an investigation into a price.
Unless we adopt an amendment such as this, we shall see more than just a glimpse of a corporate State emerging in this country. I should have thought that the Secretary of State would give thought to that. He has never been one to hang his hat on that type of institution. He is to some extent alone in the Labour Party in not wanting to see that happen. Therefore I am surprised that he has not welcomed this amendment.
The amendment is not merely reasonable. It seeks to provide a valuable addition to the clause saying that the Commission should state its reasons. Its reasons should be known. We need to know the reasons and the way in which the Commission will act. It is right that there should be this extra control and that it should be required to pause before it intervenes, and consider whether the reasons are sound and whether it dare state them.

Mr. Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving a longer reply to this debate than to the others. It is one of the longest that we have heard in this sitting. However, I do not believe that he answered many of the points which my hon. Friends and I put to him. Nor has he allayed the anxiety that will be felt in many large and small businesses when the new Price Commission operates.
The criteria which we have tried to firm up and establish, so that companies will know when their price increases are likely to be investigated, still remain vague and obscuring. One question remained unanswered. The Minister said that some matters are not capable of investigation. Will a company be investigated if it has increased its prices in the past three or six months, if it has increased its prices by 10 per cent, or 20 per cent, in the last period, if its profits have risen sharply, or if its profit margins have increased sharply? Will it be investigated if its investment programme is poor of if it has not entered into a planning agreement with the Government? Those remain areas of confusion.
We are trying to establish a set of precedents as case law so that companies

may refer to them and say "If we do X we are likely to be investigated but if we do Y we are not likely to be investigated." The Minister refused to answer that point. Nor did he meet the point of my hon. Friend the Member for East-leigh (Mr. Price) who stressed the tremendous area of uncertainty which will be increased and intensified in British industry by not having these matters spelled out.
The evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) adduced on the extra administrative burden that companies will bear as a result of the pre-notification procedures under the new Commission has not been adequately met. I ask the Minister specifically to look into the matter as the representations that we have received from substantial business companies indicate that their administrative costs under the new system will be greater than under the present system.
We all agree that in areas of imperfect competition there is a rôle for the Price Commission. One area where there is imperfect competition is the state of complacency in some parts of the House. Is that because the right hon. Gentleman has cornered the market in complacency? He complacently assured the House and asked us to leave matters in his hands, to his judgment. Few people have any confidence in either his hands or his judgment.
10.30 a.m.
The Secretary of State speaks as if he had a successful record in his Department. He has not. He has a dismal record, as he recognises himself, since hardly a week passes without his telling his friends in Fleet Street or any other wayside pulpit that his ambition is to leave his Department. He may rest assured that his ambition will be met not by elevation but by election.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 242.

[For Division List No. 169, see c. 1635]

Question accordingly negatived.

10.45 a.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.


This is the second time during these proceedings when the Opposition have attempted to terminate them. We have now sat for 18 hours and debated 12 amendments. [Interruption.] That is about one and a half hours for each amendment, including voting time.
I should be interested to know whether the Secretary of State thinks that is an unusually—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Oppenheim: We have spent approximately one and a half hours debating each amendment, including voting time. I think that is a reasonable amount of progress to have made.
I think that at this point the Secretary of State should tell the House what his intentions are regarding this sitting. We have now been sitting for 18 hours without any indication from him and without any filibustering on the amendments. We should be pleased to hear what he thinks about progress of this nature and about reporting further progress.

Mr. Hattersley: I should like to make clear the fundamental point that I tried to make clear earlier in answer to the question about what progress we mean to make. The progress that we mean to make is clear. On 1st August, if the Bill has not passed through all its stages, there will be no price control in this country. We intend that there should be price control. [Interruption.] I repeat what I said at 3 o'clock this morning. When the House rises at the end of the week, some of us will take the opportunity of reminding the country how the Opposition have behaved. That means that we must proceed.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) asked how far and for how long we must proceed. I can give her a very clear answer. If, through the operation of what I understand to be the usual channels, there seems some reasonable prospect of the Bill leaving the House of Commons in time for it to go to the House of Lords and, if their Lordships so choose, for it to be returned here in order that we can have price control after 1st August, clearly many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and me among them, will be delighted to go to bed. As things are, our duty to the

policy that we support requires that we must go on—and go on we will. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we should conduct the business in a more peaceful fashion. After all, this is probably part of the House of Commons' contribution to the Jubilee celebrations.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise to support the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). [Interruption.] I am surprised that the Secretary of State should have replied to a reasonable motion in such an arrogant fashion.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about getting through the House a piece of legislation to which the Government are committed. At no stage in his brief reply to my hon. Friend did the Secretary of State talk about the problems that this legislation would create for that sector of our country which produces the wealth upon which our prosperity and future are based. I refer, of course, to industry and commerce. Is it right that the interests of industry and commerce should be so sacrificed and that the House of Commons should consider legislation that is ill-drafted and to which the Government refuses to allow amendments? That is a sad situation.
If the Government are serious about their concern for the high level of unemployment they should be more understanding and give more sympathetic consideration to the reasonable amendments that are being moved by all parties on this side of the House. As my hon. Friend pointed out so well when she moved the first motion for the House to adjourn, we have not endeavoured to delay the passing of this legislation. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not been here."] That last intervention from a sedentary position obviously came from hon. Members who have not been here, otherwise they would have seen me sitting in this place for a large proportion of the night. I have endeavoured to catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker during the evening, but because of the excellent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) I have been unable to do so.
I took this opportunity of requesting the Government further to consider my hon. Friend's request that the House should adjourn. I do not believe the legislation can be adequately considered and scrutinised by hon. Members who have been debating for 18 hours and gone throughout the night without sleep.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), in an excellent contribution during our earlier deliberations, quoted some examples of the ridiculous drafting of this legislation. There was no reply to those points from the Minister or the Secretary of State. I am tempted to ask my hon. Friend to intervene in my speech to draw attention yet again to the pathetic drafting of this legislation.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is that a threat or a promise?

Mr. Winterton: Bearing in mind the sedentary intervention by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), I am even more tempted to ask my hon. Friend to draw the attention of the House to some of the ridiculous drafting that we are passing because the Government refuse to accept any of the reasonable amendments that we are putting forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go to bed."] I have not been to bed tonight. I would sit up all night and every night to drive this pathetic Government out of office. [Interruption.] I am delighted that my contribution is receiving response from the Government Benches.
In the coming months, when unemployment climbs higher and higher as a result of the misguided policies of the present Government, Labour Members will find themselves accountable to the people of this country because they are creating unemployment. This legislation will add to that unemployment.
I make the plea that the House should adjourn so that the Government might give further consideration to the legislation because it is badly drafted. Some of our amendments might be acceptable to the Government if they gave further consideration to them. They have adopted their present attitude through pique in their determination, following the briefing that they have had from the Prime Minister that they must not concede anything and must get all their legislation through come hell or high water.

Mr. Sedgemore: It is going through.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) has made a telling comment. He says that the legislation is going through—despite the fact that it is ill-drafted. That is not to the advantage of the House or to those who are seeking employment. If the legislation reaches the statute book in its present state, I am convinced that it will increase unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) made an outstanding speech. His understanding of the food-processing and distributive trade is unmatched in the House. [Interruption.] If the noisy rabble on the Government side of the House were to read my hon. Friend's speech they would see that it contained much good sense. The people of this country are being sadly let down by this Government.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Your low boredom threshold is well known. I wonder whether you would consider the remarks made by the hon. Member for Maccles-field (Mr. Winterton). He appears to be marshalling the same arguments as did his colleagues when this motion was moved earlier. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider ruling the hon. Member out of order for tedious repetition or to accept that the motion be put to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Chair should make some allowance for the fact that hon. Members have not been to bed and that their contributions might not be up to their usual standard. I suggest that the hon. Member for Maccles-field (Mr. Winterton), instead of shouting at the top of his voice, should conserve his energies, because he has not been to bed.

Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is making good points which have not been appreciated by everyone because they were not here when they were made earlier. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to request my hon. Friend to repeat his argument because it was difficult to hear what he was saying from where I am sitting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It does not seem a very friendly suggestion to the hon.


Member for Macclesfield that he should start all over again. He will collapse completely.

11.0 a.m.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Sir John Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Member for Macclesfield finished his remarks?

Mr. Winterton: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Well, just a moment. I take it that we are now on points of order. I call the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir J. Hall) on a point of order.

Sir John Hall: The hon. Member who originally raised with you the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden)—based it on the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) had been repeating statements that had been made previously. It will be within your recollecton, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, that it is by no means unusual for hon. Members making speeches to repeat what has been said by other Members from time to time. Indeed, I have myself sat through a debate and heard the same speech, more or less, three or four times from both sides of the House. I have yet to hear, however, any hon. Member being called to order on that account. Therefore, it seems to me—and I am sure from your reaction to the original point of order that you agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that there is nothing that my hon. Friend has done which is in any way out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall rule upon that matter within the next 24 hours.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for the comments that you have just made, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I assure you that I have unlimited energy when it comes to opposing the present Administration. I should be happy—without any feeling of imminent collapse—to repeat the arguments that I have advanced to you in support of the motion before the House.
A moment or two ago I referred to the very strange drafting of this legislation. I put forward to you the proposition that the House should adjourn because the Government, in their present frame of mind, were totally unprepared and unwilling to consider reasoned amendments to improve the legislation.
I want to quote to the House the very excellent example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. I refer to page 9 of the Bill and to Clause 6(4)(b). I should be very interested to hear from other hon. Members whether they can understand this:
if the report relates to an increase"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must rule that the hon. Member must address himself to the question of the motion before the House. To start to go further and to deal with the drafting of the Bill is, in my opinion, strictly out of order.

Mr. Winterton: I have never, Mr. Deputy Speaker, challenged the Chair, and I do not—

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the clarification of the House, will you please tell us what is the motion that we are debating?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With all the noise in the House, I did not think that hon. Members were sleeping in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) read out her motion, and I repeated it. Now I am being asked what the motion is. It seems that there is a good case for adjourning if that is the situation.

Mr. Winterton: I am inclined entirely to agree with your last comment, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was saying that I have never challenged the Chair in the six years in which I have been a Member of this House. I do not intend to do that now. However, one of the reasons why I am supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in requesting the Government to accept the motion is that the Government appear totally unwilling to see sense and to consider reasonable amendments. I believe that it would be right for them to be given a short period for reconsideration of some of the views


that have been expressed by Opposition Members.
In advance of that proposition, I was quoting from the very Bill that we are considering. It will be a very short quotation. It reads as follows:
if the report relates to an increase, a recommendation by the Commission as to whether the price"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not allow any quotation. If we were to adopt the practice that the hon. Member is now suggesting, every Bill that comes before the House could be subjected to the same sort of criticism, and hon. Members would move Adjournment motions to give the Government time to think. I ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the strict terms of the motion before the House.

Mr. Winterton: I fully accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude my very brief comments by reiterating my support for my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, because I believe that the Bill has very far-reaching implications for commerce and industry. It is commerce and industry that produce the wealth of this country and provide the employment. The Government state—falsely, I believe—that they are seeking to reduce unemployment and to improve people's standard of living. I believe that this legislation is very damaging, both to people's chances of employment and to the prosperity of commerce and industry in Britain.
For that reason I believe that it is wrong for the House, with hon. Members exhausted or very tired after an all-night sitting—[Interruption.] Labour Members would not be bellowing as they are unless they were exhausted or tired. The House should now adjourn to allow this important legislation to be considered by people who are alert and who know what they are talking about and can tackle the Bill in the way in which it should be tackled, so that when it reaches the statute book—although I personally detest this legislation from start to finish—it will be as good as the House can possibly make it, and that when it goes to another place for consideration, their Lordships will not have too long a job to do.
I fully support the motion so briefly but eloquently put over by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you been given any advice from the Government whether the Leader of the House will come and tell the House whether Questions are to be taken today? Are you aware that 57 hon. Members have tabled Questions to the Secretary of State for Transport and that there will be only one other occasion before the Summer Recess on which they will have a chance to question the Secretary of State for Transport? Has the Leader of the House given you any intimation whether it is the Government's intention to allow time for Questions this afternoon?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not the duty or any responsibility of the Leader of the House to tell the occupant of the Chair what the business is. All that the occupant of the Chair has to do is to discharge the Standing Orders of the House itself.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House, and it might shorten the debate—which I am sure is what you want and what all hon. Members want—if the Secretary of State were to answer the question that has been posed about his intentions. We have asked him this question and he has not answered. He just says that he wants the Bill through all its stages by 1st August. That does not tell hon. Members whether Questions will be answered today, or whether they can attend luncheon engagements today. It tells us nothing. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could give some better information to the House.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Cyril Smith: My intervention will be very brief, but it will at least be an intervention. I want to intervene, and not, unlike the hon. Member for Maccles-field (Mr. Winterton), because a Whip comes to me and says "Please will you speak?"

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to advise the hon. Member that, whether it is good or bad, I have a reputation in this House for not acceding to requests or demands from the Conservative Whips' Office. As I tried to make clear earlier, I have been endeavouring to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye on many occasions during the debate that we have been having in the last 18 hours.

Mr. Smith: I hope that this part of the debate on the Adjournment will not be a repetition of what happened at 3.30 this morning when we debated for a full hour about nothing. That is clearly to be the tactics of the Opposition once again—to spend a full hour about nothing. They are the same Opposition who say that they are concerned about prices in this country. It is clear, and it becomes clearer as the debate continues, that the Conservative Opposition do not wish to see any mechanism in this country for the control of prices. That is clear, and I hope that Labour MPs and certainly Members of my party will make this clear in their speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Having said that, I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to accept the motion which I now seek to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We shall go on just a little while longer.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: I dare say that in considering this motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are aware that the last occasion on which a sitting day ran on to another, when it was not a Thursday running into a Friday, was on 12th June 1951, on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of that year. The Leader of the House is absent and cannot give us his guidance on this motion. We find ourselves in a difficult position, and the Leader of the House should be here to help us with guidance. When the business runs through from Thursday to Friday we are not faced with the problem of the Order Paper and Questions being lost.
For the first time for a long time I find myself having the second Question on the Order Paper. It is to ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had about the need to improve rural transport, which is nonexistent in my constituency. What is to happen to this Question? To have second place on the Order Paper and thus to be

certain of getting one's Question answered is very valuable and I am reluctant to lose that valuable position through the Government's incompetence.
Will the 57 Questions mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) take precedence on Wednesday 20th July when we have our next chance to question the Secretary of State for Transport? Will they be carried through from today or have we to struggle again in the queue, hoping to get second place to pin down the Secretary of State on a matter which is causing great concern throughout Lincolnshire?
The absence of the Leader of the House means that we cannot have guidance from him as to how he intends to handle that situation.
A previous Member for Gainsborough was a distinguished Leader of the House and never left the Chamber on these occasions. He was always here to help and advise the House and he would have been here at 10.55 a.m. to consider the motion which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) moved. It would have helped us to deal with the problem. In view of the Questions which may be lost we should adjourn now so that the Leader of the House can be found and brought here to make a statement to explain how a situation which has not arisen since 12th June 1951 can be handled.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To short-circuit any possible queries which the hon. Member has just addressed to the Chair I would tell him that the Standing Orders on the situtaion in which we find ourselves state that if we go beyond 2.30 p.m. with our business, all Questions are dropped and have to be put down again. Therefore, the situation is still open. We have not lost Wednesday's business and will not have lost it until 2.30 p.m. There is a lot of time to go yet and a lot of steam to be let off before 2.30 p.m.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Madden: We began consideration of this motion at 10.46 a.m. and this was the second attempt by the Opposition to terminate the debate. It has been extended unduly by their filibustering attack all through the night. Questions are endangered only by the actions of the Opposition and the solution is in their hands. The amendments which they have tabled can be withdrawn or not


moved and today's business and questions secured.
I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as we have heard a number of speakers on this motion and as there is a general anxiety to proceed, and as the arguments being put are exactly the same as those put hours ago, to consider a motion to the effect that the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker withheld his assent and declined then to put the Question.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sainsbury——

Mr. Walter Harrison: Mr. Walter Harrison rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Sainsbury: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you called me before that point of order was taken. I had the Floor.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The position is that a closure motion can be accepted in mid-speech of any hon. Member.

Mr. Crouch: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Further to your recent ruling about the continuance of business in the House up to 2.30 p.m., can you tell the House whether there is any intermission time—time to roll the wicket for example? If we go to 2.25 p.m., are we in danger of losing the business, or has it to be 2.30 p.m.?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So long as it does not override 2.30 p.m., the business for Wednesday stands.

The House having divided: Ayes 245, Noes 194.

[For Division List No. 170, see c. 1639]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 251.

[For Division List No. 171, see c. 1643]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Sainsbury: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance on the proceedings immediately prior to the acceptance of the closure motion, which was, so to speak, two Divisions ago.
As I recall the sequence of events, there was a Back-Bench motion to closure discussion which you were not inclined to accept. You called me to speak and I rose to my feet, but before I commenced to say anything a point of order was raised by the Government. It was a somewhat lengthy point of order, and, indeed, one began to think that it might be a speech. At the end of that point of order I rose to my feet, but before I had spoken you accepted a closure motion from the Government Front Bench.
I accept that that may be technically in order, but it seems to me that the rule which allows acceptance of a closure during an hon. Member's speech must be intended to prevent unnecessarily long-winded speeches. That was not the case in this instance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The position is clear. I was not prepared to accept a motion from a Back Bencher, but I accepted a motion from the Government Whip. When he moved that motion, I decided to accept it and to put the Question.

Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the Government have rejected the invitation to adjourn proceedings on the Bill, may I have your guidance as the protector of the interests of hon. Members? It is not just a matter of Question Time having to be abandoned by the Government's antics in this debate, but, far more important, there will be no opportunity for hon. Members to raise urgent matters this afternoon. You will be aware that the deadline for applications for Private Notice Questions is 12 noon. Hon. Members might wish to hear statements on urgent matters such as the siege at Willesden, the huge rise in unemployment figures or the breakdown in transatlantic communications.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can short-circuit the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The facts he is relating are well known to every hon. Member. We are continuing Tuesday's business. We shall have lost Wednesday's


business if this sitting goes beyond 2.30 p.m.
The position as the hon. Gentleman stated it is correct. If there is no Question Time, Private Notice Questions, which normally follow Question Time, cannot be dealt with during the proceedings on a Bill. Furthermore, it is not for hon. Members in points of order to challenge the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Rost: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not challenging your ruling in any way, nor was I challenging the Chair. I was seeking your guidance. As it is now clear that Private Notice Questions will not be acceptable today, nor, presumably, will applications under Standing Order No. 9, I seek your guidance. What remedies are available to hon. Members who have urgent matters which they wish to raise in the House?

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not yet 12 o'clock and we do not know what may happen up to 2.29 p.m. Everything could by then be back to normal. The only advice I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he should seek to arrange for the matters he mentioned to be dealt with on Thursday—provided that we have finished with this Bill.

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition to raise points of order which abuse and waste the time of the House when they know that they have brought this situation upon themselves?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that gives the Chair the power to refuse to take points of order, even though 99·9 per cent, of them may not be points of order.

Mr. F. A. Burden: There is a point of grave concern to be considered, and it was referred to by the Prime Minister yesterday. He said that the Bermuda Agreement would be fixed by last night. The whole country and the House are concerned about this matter because it affects transatlantic travel. May I put this question to you, Sir? If Question Time is lost, is it possible for a Minister to come to the House to make

a statement about the Bermuda Agreement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter entirely for the Government.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? If the Government were to adjourn their business by 2.30 p.m., they could then restart the business. They could begin with Questions and then continue with the Bill at 3.30 p.m. In that way, nothing need be lost to the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be a possibility, but it is not for the Chair to rule whether it is or is not acceptable.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not open to us to question the Chair, and I shall not do so, but I hope that you will understand the surprise I felt in view of the short period of time which was allowed to debate the motion to consider adjourning the debate. I repeat that I am not challenging your ruling in any way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not the duty of any hon. Member to curtail debate. It is the decision of the Chair. We had barely 27 minutes and six speakers, two of whom spoke formally. The Secretary of State responded formally to the formal moving of the closure by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). We heard only some points, and they were all reasonable, sound and sensible. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a serious point that the Bill needed redrafting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) has said that he is not challenging the ruling of the Chair, but in fact he is doing so. I made the decision, for which I accept full responsibility, and I have no regrets for having taken it.

Mr. Crouch: I did not want to question the Chair but merely wanted to point out that when the Chair curtailed debate there were still four hon. Members who wanted to make points, and the Chair was not to know what were the points they wanted to make. I was upset that the debate on whether to adjourn was curtailed so soon, because we had heard some good reasons about why the debate


should be adjourned. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) said peremptorily that he wanted the debate to continue and that he did not want the motion approved—that was a fair comment—but we do not know what the other four hon. Members wanted to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There may be another 44 hon. Members wishing to speak, but that does not affect the situation. I take full responsibility. I did not create any precedents. I now appeal to hon. Members not to pursue points of order which are, in fact, not points of order, because they are prejudicing the chances of business being finished by 2.29 p.m.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), you said that it was not impossible that the House might adjourn before 2.30 p.m. and that it would then be able to take Questions on transport. Are there any rules of the House or conventions that would prevent the Chair from taking another motion to adjourn the debate before 2.30 p.m?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a sort of unwritten rule about how we do this, and usually a closure motion is taken about once every seven hours. I cannot speak for my successor in the Chair, who will be here at 12.30 p.m.—and I shall be grateful to leave. However, if I were in the Chair it would be about six to seven hours before I accepted another motion to adjourn.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On today's Order Paper there is a motion in the name of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). The motion asks
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent European Community legislation from coming into effect in the United Kingdom without the prior approval of the British Parliament, and to amend the European Community Act 1972 accordingly.
Am I right in thinking that if we lose that motion today there will be no chance of its being moved again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 36, after 'increase' insert

'in excess of cost increases incurred since the previous price increase'.
The interest and liveliness which have just been shown about a fundamental point during the last 45 minutes indicate that after 18 hours of debate on the Bill the Opposition are in thoroughly good heart. I must make clear to those who may think otherwise that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppen-heim) and I, and the other hon. Members who served in Committee on the Bill, have the greatest possible interest in ensuring that the Bill is not enacted in a form that is deeply damaging in its effects upon employment, upon the viability of industry and upon certain sectors of the economy. We regard it as our duty to ensure that every amendment is carefully argued and that the facts and the pros and cons are weighed in order to ensure that we enact a Bill which has been substantially improved through its progress in the House.
The reason why the debate is being held over such a protracted period is that there were no concessions in Committee—although there were 16 tied votes—and that although the Government have made one or two modest concessions on Report there have been no major changes in the Bill.

Mr. Madden: I am interested in that explanation. I believe that it is related to the Opposition's attempt to filibuster and their failure yet to win a vote.

Mr. Shaw: That cannot be sustained on either count. The Chair would have ruled us out of order if we had been filibustering, and if one considers the amendments that we have been debating during the long hours of the night one can have no doubt of their significance and importance.

Mr. Madden: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising to put yet another point of order, but as the attempt to kill the debate has been defeated by a substantial majority, and as we have been joined by the day shift of Tories against price controls, would the Chair consider it appropriate to appeal to the Opposition to limit their speeches in the knowledge that the Bill is supported by the House and the public who want price controls?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is typical of the device of points of order that are not points of order.

Mr. Shaw: No doubt the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) could have an election tomorrow if he wished. If he could find people to vote for him who regarded prices legislation as important and significant in its contribution to the level of prices in the shops, I should like to see them.
We regard Amendment No. 18 as of great importance, and I shall explain why. This portion of the Bill deals with the powers of investigation. The Price Commission will be entitled, having received an application, to set in train an investigation into that application if it so wishes in the light of the criteria set out in Clause 2 of the Bill. In consequence of that investigation being put in train, the price application must be frozen for 28 days and it can continue to be frozen for a further three-month period of investigation. There could then follow a period of four to six weeks in which the Commission could arrive at its report and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. A period of six to eight weeks or more of price-freezing could be deeply damaging to companies, even though the application might have been made in good faith and the investigation might finally show that there was no reason why the increase should not be granted.
It must be noted that the principle upon which the clause operates is that those who make a price application will be presumed to be guilty until proved innocent. Equally, it will be noted that although there are control powers available—and I shall refer to them shortly—the period of five months or so could be one in which great damage was being done to the company which had made the application.
12 noon.
In Standing Committee we argued that there should be different procedures for handling price increases and applications, as well as for the price-freeze powers of the Commission. We sought to provide that if an application were made which satisfied the normal criteria and the Commission wished to investigate it, it should do so without a freeze being applied until the result of the investigation was known. If the investigation held

that the application was faulty, the price could be rolled back and the consumer should get the benefit. The rolling back of prices has been introduced by the Government recently in respect of telephone charges. Many subscribers will be delighted to receive a £7 roll-back in October. This is a perfectly acceptable way of handling a case of excessive costs leading to excessive charges and of their being reduced in the price to the consumer. However, that procedure was not accepted. We still feel that a provision to freeze prices for as long as four or five months cannot be allowed to pass.
The amendment seeks to tackle the problem in a slightly different way. It provides that during an investigation in which it is proposed that the price should be frozen all costs incurred by the manufacturer or the operator of a service industry during that period should be allowed to be passed on. It is admitted that profit margins would remain the same. The costs incurred are, in most cases, outside the control of the applicant companies. The vast majority of companies to which the procedure applies would have removed the threat of a price freeze, and with that would go the removal of the threat to the viability of the company.
I cannot stress too strongly the likely consequences to a company of a substantial freeze. Labour Members think that prices can be turned on and off like taps, that they can be frozen or subsidised or that the mechanism can be interfered with to produce an illusion of price restraint. In every case where intervention takes the form of an artificial restraint, whether by subsidy or a freeze, two things happen. An artificial force is introduced into the market place, and at the end of the period different action has to be taken to restore the position.
The Government have lambasted their predecessors for intrefering with the price mechanism of nationalised undertakings. The subsidies to these industries are now being phased out. We applaud that fact, because there has to be a true relationship between the cost of a product or service and, allowing a fair profit margin, the price charged to the consumer. It is in restoring this balance in pricing policy that the amendment can make such an important contribution.
We know how the Commission will deal with most applications. We are told that


it is likely to launch about 40 investigations a year. These are bound to be based on inadequate information, because if the Commission knew the pricing policy of the company concerned there would be no need for an investigation. We must assume that during an investigation a freeze could be imposed virtually at will and on a random basis in such a way that the company would have to hold down prices.
In the vast majority of cases there is little evidence that the pricing mechanisms of most competitive markets result in excessive profit or the consumer getting a bad deal on prices. This matter has been frequently referred to by Ministers, who have acknowledged that by and large the operation of the Price Code and the Commission has not resulted in a large number of defaulting British companies. We may assume that under the new régime there will be investigations on a random basis that will cause substantial freezing and dislocation of British industry and commerce.
Even with a freeze for as short a period as three months, it could take a full year to recover the profit margin lost during that time. The company could be put substantially at risk in terms of employment, investment and continued expansion of markets. Is this really an equitable or sensible way to proceed?
There is evidence to suggest that among the sectors that will be investigated is the manufacture and distribution of food products. I declare my interest in the food industry. Certainly facts have emerged in recent months about food prices. The publication of the Food and Drinks Industry Council shows the profitability of the major food-producing companies in terms of sales, historic cost profits and profits adjusted for inflation in 1976. The historic cost profits of these major companies, whose total turnovers exceeds £5 billion, is 4·11 per cent. for the third quarter and 4·23 per cent. for the fourth quarter. Adjusted for inflation, the figures are 0·21 per cent. and 009 per cent. respectively. This gives no indication of excessive profiteering in the food manufacturing sector. If there is a price freeze on food companies, they will go completely liquid in a very short time.

Mr. John Fraser: On the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted, the companies would fall within the safe-

guards in relation to percentage turnover. It would be wrong for him to mislead the House. These companies would not be subject to harmful intervention because, on the figures that he gave, they would be protected by the safeguards.

Mr. Shaw: I recognise that the figures I quoted are within the safety margin, but the Minister of State knows that if we are discussing a freeze for a potential five months the question of safeguards and whether companies can survive is much more acute. The present proposals seriously reduce the profit safeguard levels obtaining even last year. A price freeze for four or five months could play havoc with the trading patterns of most major food-producing companies which have to rely considerably on commodity prices which fluctuate extremely widely.
The position is even worse for those who buy and sell seasonal products, whether they be seasonal consumer products, fresh products or gift-market products. The companies responsible for those products would obviously be at greater risk if their prices were to be frozen for as long as five months.
We consider it important that we find a way of allowing legitimate costs to be recovered to protect industry from unnecessary freezing when at the time the freeze is undertaken there is no evidence that it is fully justified. The Government must admit that the consequence of most price investigations will be that most prices are found to be satisfactory. That is the average run of industry today, and there is no reason to suppose that on 1st August the average performance of British industry will suddenly change.
If the result of investigations is that on average the prices that were applied were reasonable, surely we can argue that it is unreasonable that those prices should have been frozen for a period. If we also recognise that when it investigates the Commission will be largely determining the factors of profits and costs, I suggest that the costs factor is the one most likely to be accepted by the Commission. That is because it is usually the case that costs are levied upon a company from outside and are not of its own generation, except for internal costs which largely take the form of wage costs, which I am sure Labour Members would hardly wish to be the subject of a freeze.
We argue most strongly that it is necessary to amend the Bill to provide for the recovery of costs during the period of the price freeze.
I turn to the consequence of price-freezing not merely on applicant companies but on others. We have already had a debate on the consequences for smaller businesses of price investigations into a market leader. The House must be under no illusion that when a price freeze takes place on a market leader the Commission will largely be examining the larger companies with the larger brands and turnovers. We must bear in mind that a price increase in those circumstances will have a major effect upon the levels of all goods in a reasonably competitive market. If that it so, many other companies that are in no way affected by the direct investigation of the Commission will have their prices frozen. The consequence of that upon jobs, investment, cash flow and viability will be extremely severe.
The consequences of price-freezing could have a major disincentive effect on the very objectives that the Government seem to lose no opportunity of pronouncing from the roof-tops. They seek to suggest that they are desperately anxious to improve the trend in unemployment, which price-freezing will damage. They say that they are desperately anxious to see investment increase, and price-freezing will damage that. They seem to say at every turn that they wish to see more competitiveness and more effort put into British industry so as to generate products to sell overseas, and price-freezing will damage that.
From all those points of view, we believe that the Government are wrong to use a power that could put at risk large sectors of industry when there is insufficient evidence to show that that risk is justified. If a company had to produce what is virtually a potted investigation in advance, there might be a case for saying that the price freeze is a reasonable mechanism if it could be shown as a prima facie case that a price freeze was called for because the price application was out of order. However, as we understand the criteria under which the Commission will operate, it has general guidance under Clause 2 but a power at any time, if it has a price application.

to decide to launch an investigation. The Secretary of State has the power to ask the Commission to intervene in that way.
12.15 p.m.
We are dealing with an open-ended danger which is poised at the heart of many industrial companies. What will be the position under this legislation? How will the Commission operate, and what are the safeguards that can be taken to try to maintain employment, investment and viability? We believe that the amendment offers such an opportunity. It would allow for the recovery of legitimate costs. It would allow the Commission to investigate profiteering, which we accept should be discouraged and investigated. However, it will not allow the Commission to freeze prices with totally damaging consequences. In that way it would make a substantial improvement to the Bill.
Even at this late stage, we hope most sincerely that the Government will agree that this is an amendment which should be considered and should become part of the Bill.

Mr. Shersby: As my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) has said, the amendment is intended to modify the power of the Commission to freeze a pre-notified price during investigation. As my hon. Friend has said, it is an amendment which is vital to the food and drink industries in particular. The industries have told me that they are concerned that they may be more subject to investigation than almost any other industry. That is because their prices are continually exposed to intense public scrutiny and interest.
I believe most hon. Members will agree that when we talk about price control we are talking most of the time about food price control, which is reasonable and understandable. The industries are in a situation in which their costs include commodities bought on the world markets and the prices of which are liable to be more extreme and more erratic than almost any others, thus making a three-month price freeze potentially extremely damaging as compared with its effect, for example, in the capital goods sectors. Moreover, the food and drink industries have a good reputation for their fair pricing policies. They are moderate, socially responsible and highly responsive to the competitive forces of the market


place. That has been acknowledged in a number of the Minister's speeches.
The powers under the Bill to be granted to the Commission during investigation are such that it has been calculated that a three-month freeze could easily eliminate a year's profit. Such a loss could have an extremely harsh effect on firms engaged in seasonal trading. Consequently the amendment, if accepted, would provide the next best alternative to the roll-back system which my hon. Friend proposed in Committee but was not accepted.
Another important factor that the House should take into account in considering the amendment is industrial confidence. That is at stake, because under the provisions contained in the Bill any firm, however responsible or moderate in its pricing policy, could be subjected to investigation on notifying a price increase, however legitimate it might be. There is no protection in the Bill since the criteria are not entirely satisfactory. That is an issue that we have debated at considerable length in Committee and on Report. That is the main reason why the food industry regards the new proposals contained in the Bill as less desirable than the expiring code, with all its faults.
I must say for the expiring code that it provided certainty and a basis on which cash flow could be predicted, thus allowing investment to be planned. Under the Bill there will be no certainty whether an increase will be allowed since there will be no allowable cost provisions. Uncertainty whether an adequate interim increase will be granted during investigation if the increase is disallowed is another important factor that must be taken into account.
There is uncertainty about what the recommendation of the Commission and the decision of the Secretary of State will be up to five months after the pre-notification. That is causing uncertainty of great magnitude. As the Minister knows, it is that accumulation of uncertainty that can damage investment plans. We are moving the amendment because we wish to remove that uncertainty and remove damage to investment plans and to the prospects of greater employment in those industries.
It is all very well for Secretaries of State to say that industry must trust the Commission not to act unreasonably. I hope that the Minister is right. When I asked a Question of the Secretary of State on Monday, I welcomed the fact that he had announced the names of the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman of the Price Commission. I hope that the Commission will not act unreasonably. Certainly that is one of the key factors in the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
The amendment seeks to bring a greater degree of certainty to the operations of the Commission. If the amendment is accepted, the position will be that a firm selected for investigation will be allowed during the investigation period to charge a price to reflect at least the total additional costs incurred in respect of the product since the last authorised price increase. That would be a mandatory interim price increase during the investigation, and dating from the day the investigation was notified, to reflect total increased costs rather than to allow 80 per cent. of the base margin at the time of the last price increase over total costs. The costs would be listed by the firm when originally pre-notifying its increase and would be checked by the Commission during the investigation, so that there would be no possibility of their being incorrectly changed. Nor would there be any question of inequity to the consumer as it is extremely unlikely that the Commission, after investigation, would not recommend that all costs actually incurred should be allowed.
I believe that this amendment is one of the most important that we have debated during the Report stage of the Bill. It is important to the consumer and industry. We shall not hear any more nonsense of the kind we heard today in the House about Conservative Members wishing to prevent the Bill becoming law. On the contrary, we are here to discuss the detailed provisions of the Bill which were previously discussed in Committee, with the result that many Divisions were tied. It is not my intention to prevent the Bill becoming law. On the contrary, my intention is to see that we debate it properly and that we have an Act which is workable and which has the confidence of industry and the consumer.

Mr. Michael Morris: This is the first time I have spoken in the debate. I do so as I wish to address my remarks on the amendment to an industry which is of great significance to my constituency and to the future viability of the new town of Northampton. I wish to raise the question of the processed meat industry, which is greatly affected by the implications of the clause and would be substantially helped by the amendment. The problem for the processed meat industry is one of time and the relationship of movements in the prices of raw materials which make up between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the finished article. Raw material prices are volatile and may move suddenly in a market situation.
I am not talking about a small industry. Its total turnover of controlled products is of the order of an estimated £515 million this year. The definition of "controlled product" was based on a survey of 20 companies' controlled results made by Messrs. Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. The comparable figure in 1975 was £400 million. That gives an indication of the rate of inflation in this market.
The estimated profit on turnover is only 1 per cent. That is a tiny figure in relation to total turnover, as the Minister will concede. The comparable figure in 1975 was only 0·39 per cent. There has been a marginal increase in the viability of the local industry.

Mr. John Fraser: I ask the hon. Gentleman to express to those in Northampton who may be genuinely worried that, on those figures, they would be well protected and well within the safeguards published in the consultative document.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the Minister.
On Friday I had a meeting in depth with the management of this major supplier, Telfers, which has a major factory. Its management is by no means satisfied that the safeguard provisions that the Minister mentioned are adequate in its situation. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) explained in detail why there is still this worry.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The House is interested in the way the Minister keeps referring to the safeguard levels. He says that the bulk of British industry is

living on the supplementary benefit of a Price Code, whereas British industry should be earning a rate of profit sufficient to enable itself to invest and develop.

Mr. Morris: That clarifies the situation.
I should like to explain the figures. The Minister may wish, through his officials, to approach the processed meat industry, and reassure it, if he thinks he can do so. However, I must develop the argument put to me by those who are experienced in the industry.
As the Minister keeps in contact with the market, he will recall that there was a 20 per cent. increase in prices last year. The forecast for the remainder of this year is that for pigmeat, which is substantially used in this industry for sausages and pork pies, we are talking in terms of a forecast 12 per cent. increase in raw material prices for beef, which is essentially used in burgers and similar products. Against that background, we must look at a 4 per cent. increase in application terms. This would amount, in terms of profit, to an increase in turnover of over £20·6 million and a loss of profit of £5·1 million, which on my figures would virtually wipe out the industry's profits.
There is concern over the delaying factor. Neither the industry nor I am clear whether the pre-notification system for sausages and pies will be maintained in future if the Bill becomes law. At the moment the industry is in a difficult situation, which needs clarification.
The Minister must be concerned about housewives. The average household has switched from red meat, which rocketed in price, to processed pork products such as sausages and meat pies. We anticipate that with the inevitable substantial increase in price there will be a further switch to burgers. The industry is confused and worried and needs reassurance and clarification. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify its situation.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant: I intervene for the first time on the Bill. I support the amendment on behalf of small businesses, which would have great difficulty in sustaining extra costs during a freeze of five months. One of their difficulties is cash flow, especially


in the face of increased nationalised industry costs. The amendment does not derogate from the purposes of the Bill. It provides a safeguard, so that during the interim period a company can continue to pass on increased costs.
Without the amendment, debts will increase. Most companies spend a great deal of time getting money in for cash flow purposes; some employ someone just for that purpose. Six weeks' delay is common now in the payment of bills, and it will increase. That could be serious for a small company, perhaps with a running overdraft.
Many small companies make specialised products—we lead the world in this area—from specialised materials like copper, which fluctuate widely in price. They may have problems deciding when to purchase extra supplies. That is the sort of practical problem that small companies will face unless they can pass on these costs quickly.
There is a great lack of understanding in this place about the day-to-day problems of industry, which are tied up with the paying of bills. There is a constant problem of keeping the money coming in. A normal increase in pay, perhaps under an annual review, and even under the pay policy, might come during that period. The company will naturally wish to pay its staff, but it will face these difficulties. I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the amendment.

Mr. William Shelton: This is the first time I have intervened since yesterday. The amendment should be accepted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that we do not want the Bill to fail. I do not believe that it will affect the rate of price increases. Over the last two or three years the present Commission has not achieved that, and the new one will not do so. The Secretary of State's words on that have been quoted. Nevertheless, while bargaining is going on towards stage 3 there must be some control of prices as a cosmetic operation, although little will be achieved.
If we accept the necessity for a Bill like this and accept the loss of our first amendment which attempted to limit its life, we must do all we can to reduce its damaging potential. The first area in which damage can be caused is that of

confidence. The situation will be like a lottery. Industry will not know where the rifle is pointed, where the bullet will strike or which company will be hauled before the Price Commission. As one of my hon. Friends said, the wife of the Chairman might come back from shopping complaining about the price of a meat loaf, thereby sparking off an investigation.
The second area of potential damage is related to the amendment. A company whose prices are frozen unexpectedly, while its costs increase might not go bankrupt, but there would be one unacceptable consequence. If a market leader receives this treatment, all its smaller competitors, with perhaps a few per cent. of the market, will not be able to increase their prices above those of the market leader. Inevitably, the smaller companies will have to impose an involuntary freeze on themselves. If raw materials and wage costs increase, that may badly affect the finance of smaller companies.
The market leader will not go bankrupt, but even when its increases are granted—as we have seen, the great majority are granted—it will have lost what it needed to maintain its planned profitability. It will then almost inevitably have to cut back on investment in labour, research and development and plant—just what we desperately need to spur on the economy.
Labour Members stress the importance of investment. Unamended, much of the Bill will damage investment and confidence. We have said this time and again. I hope that we shall be proved wrong, but I fear that we shall not.
My next question springs from my not having been on the Standing Committee. It relates to the penalties which will apply should an order be contravened. I have studied the Bill but I cannot see where they are specified. However, I understand that penalties will be heavy if a company increases its prices because of increasing and unavoidable costs. That cannot be right if at the end of the day the price increase proves to be justified and is permitted.
This is analagous to the situation enshrined in our law, which has always seemed to me to be rather unfair, that if a man is accused of a crime and is found


to be innocent he is in some cases expected to bear the costs. I am not a lawyer, but I have never understood why that should be. If a man is accused of a crime and the Crown has made a mistake and the jury finds the man innocent, why should he have to bear the costs of his defence? Similarly, if a company makes a price increase which is frozen but is eventually granted, in the meantime the company suffers and has no redress.
Finally, I repeat that the smaller companies which were unable to increase their prices above the market leader's prices, which were frozen, may face the far greater penalty of bankruptcy. This amendment, which will not create any fundamental change, will restore some of the confidence in industry which has been shaken by the Bill. I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Rathbone: I intervene in the debate again to accentuate the point so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) concerning small companies. I do so because the Minister gave the impression yesterday afternoon that he dismissed the effects of the Bill as a threat to small companies. I made the point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North, that the real threat to the small business was as a supplier to rather than as a customer of big business. The Minister said that he did not mention that aspect because it was not raised in the debate. That is a statement of fact which is true. However, by not raising that aspect at the time the hon. Gentleman left the House with the impression that there was no threat, or only a minimal threat, to small businesses.
I remind the House of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said on 11th October:
one of the things of which we complain is the uneven effect of the code—and indeed that it is far more repressive in the case of some industries and businesses than in others."—[Official Report, 11th October 1976; Vol. 917. c. 181.]
I reaccentuate that point now.
The amendment attempts to make it easier for small companies in particular to anticipate the needs of a fast-changing market situation—fast-changing because of competition form abroad. I cite par-

ticularly the competition that we are expecting from Japanese manufacturers of sound systems, cassettes and radiograms, which represents a direct threat to Thorn Electrical Industries Ltd. in my constituency. But it is evolving even more because the Government have repeatedly led people to believe that the economic situation would be better than it has turned out.
12.45 p.m.
I do not need to remind the House of the optimistic projections of inflation made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer over the years—down to single figures by year end, down to single figures by the autumn, and down to single figures by year end yet again. Now we are not even down to single figures by year end. We are down to between 10 per cent. and 12 per cent. by the end of the year.
When a business is trying to work out its price structure to meet competition from other businesses, particularly other businesses abroad, and to enter into competition in foreign markets, it is virtually impossible for it to anticipate accurately the cost of its raw materials, especially if it has been misled by the Chancellor's projections. One of the unfortunate effects of the Bill is uncertainty on future corporate planning.
The amendment seeks in some small way to reduce that effect. It has no overall substantive effect on the principle of the Bill, but it seeks to make it much easier for companies to plan within the operation of the Bill.
If the amendment is not accepted by the Government, the clause will have another deleterious effect on business—namely, in not allowing anticipated cost increases to be accommodated quickly in price increases for the goods manufactured. Decisions to raise prices may be advanced to allow sufficient time for the additional cost of the raw materials to be incorporated in them. The amendment would meet that point to some degree if it were accepted.
I ask the Minister to apply his mind most carefully to the effect that the clause, unamended, will have on all kinds of businesses, but particularly on small businesses. I ask this because earlier he showed himself to be lacking in understanding about the effect on small businesses.

Mr. John Fraser: I resent slightly the remarks made at the end of the speech by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I listened to four and a half hours of debate yesterday. I felt that I had a duty to the House to reply to the many points which were made in that time. I think that after that assiduous attendance I can hardly be expected to comment on a point which had not been made during that time.
In Standing Committee I said, and I repeat now, that we have no wish to change the viability, investment plans or employment opportunities created by any company.
In most cases—indeed, in all cases according to the criteria—costs incurred by an efficient firm will be recoverable. That is one of the items in the criteria. The Price Commission will have to pay regard to that criterion in selecting a price increase or firm, if it is a non-notifying firm, for investigation. It will have to bear that point in mind in considering whether to allow an interim price increase.
The debate relates to what more properly can be discussed in the context of safeguards. We do not feel that it is possible to build into the Bill, which moves away from cost increases, a safeguard based simply on costs. The amendment is defective in that it does not define costs. Indeed, the Price Commission would not know what costs were increasing during the course of an investigation. It could unknowingly expose firms to criminal proceedings because of the difficulty of interpretation of the word "costs", but we think that would be uncertain and unfair and would cause administrative chaos. Therefore, we have taken a different approach—the safeguard approach. In virtually every case that has been mentioned in the debate the firm would already be protected by the proposed safeguards in the consultative document. I hope that that is a reassurance.
Since there is to be a safeguard during the course of investigation of over 80 per cent. of the recent margins, a firm which makes a 10 per cent. margin on its product, if there is a price increase, would have to bear 2 per cent., at the most, of the increase in cost that takes place. With other safeguards, including those involving 2 per cent. on distribution, 3 per cent. on manufacturing and 10 per cent.

on return on capital, that should give the House some reassurance.
I am prepared to go further, because I do not want to see damage done. Whilst I cannot undertake that all cost increases can be automatically allowed, I undertake, in formulating and discussing the safeguards, to consider carefully all the points made in the debate, particularly those relating to the food distribution industry. I hope that that will be taken as a genuine attempt to meet the fears which, in most cases, are unjustified. I hope that the House will not press me to go further at present.
The question of sausages and meat pies was raised. It made my mouth water. The exemption from pre-notification for sausages and meat pies will continue in the new notification order. I hope that that is reassuring

Mr. Neubert: In contrast to the Undersecretary of State, the Minister of State made a sincere attempt to answer the question put to him in the first four and a half hours of the debate. It was the second four or five hours that were so unsatisfactory.
However, my anxieties are not altogether allayed by what the Minister said. The issue is one of considerable importance to the Opposition. It seems to us to be one of simple justice. There can be nothing closer to the heart of our concern than that. I hope that that concern is shared by other hon. Members. To judge from their lack of contribution to the debate it does not seem to be evident on the Labour Benches.

Mr. J. W. Rookcr: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The public should not have to sit and listen to the hypocrisy of the Opposition. I spy strangers and ask you to clear the Galleries.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) persists with such a motion, I shall have to put it in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Question, That strangers do withdraw, put and negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members kindly withdraw from the Chamber if they do not wish to participate in the debate? Mr. Neubert.

Mr. Neubert: As it was my speech that was so abruptly interrupted by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) may I say that I regard him as one of the last to——

Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was described as a hypocrite before that motion was moved. Is that a parliamentary term?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has no recollection of any direct accusation being made in those terms, which are, of course, unparliamentary. The Chair did not hear it.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Member for Perry Barr is one of the last who should jump to that kind of manoeuvre. On the Second Reading of the Bill he made an important point about the powers residing in the Commission. He said:
simply because my Government are proposing these powers, I do not necessarily accept that that is a good way to govern the country. The powers are much too wide. There is no accountability to this House and to the people's elected representatives. In the short time that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen more and more Bills corning forward giving a greater degree of discretion to Ministers. It is a trend which I do not like. I do not like the principle."—]Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1321.]
For the hon. Gentleman to interrupt proceedings within two minutes of my rising to my feet on what we regard as one of the most important issues in the Bill is reprehensible in the extreme, and although no direct reference was made to my speech I still think that it should not have been made in relation to the debate in general.
1.0 p.m.
I intend to speak to the amendment. It is a matter of simple justice to those who would be the subject of these random selected interventions by the newly-constituted Price Commission. It has already been indicated that in such circumstances the balance of advantage ought to lie not in favour of the Price Commission but in favour of the company to be investigated; in other words,

that the company should not be regarded as having exceeded any of the criteria in the Bill until it is proved so by investigation and that it should not suffer by doing so—not the reverse.
To develop my argument I need to go back to the point about the Commission and the likely way in which it will go about its work, and the way in which companies will be selected and their activities and, in particular, their price increases, be subject to investigation.
As has been indicated by the Secretary of State, there is already a precommit-ment to 40 specific price increase investigations during the course of a year and some 10 sectoral surveys. That is already an advance on what might be expected, not just for this year but, as we have seen on the first amendment, for the years to come. There will, therefore, be a considerable number of these investigations undertaken. When one sees how easily they can be undertaken, one has natural apprehensions about how long they will take or how quickly they will be completed and how much damage will be done during the course of them.
When reference was made to this matter in Committee, I pointed out that the references already made to the Price Commission had been made on evidence which had appeared, in so far as public representations were concerned, to be fairly scanty—namely, letters to the Department and complaints made to Members of Parliament. I am not putting more than the bare face-value facts on that information. I quite understand that the Department and the Price Commission, and even the Minister, when coming to a conclusion that a price or an industry ought to be investigated, take into account not merely the simple factor of letters received from the public making complaint but wider issues, including their own knowledge of the industry, their observation of the price increases and the developing situation in that industry. None the less, I do not think that the evidence so far is altogether encouraging.
The Minister considers that he has scored some successes in the subjects that he has invited the Price Commission to investigate—but, to my mind, not very conclusively. Without going over one issue that has been discussed at some length, namely, television rental charges,


I remind the House that in Committee we touched on funeral charges, which axe again subject to an investigation by the present Price Commission, which did not interfere with pricing policy while the investigation was undertaken.
However, the report of the Price Commission, as summarised in the latest quarterly report up to 28th February of this year, said that the Commission
had found no evidence of the kind of abuse of funeral charges which had been so widely publicised in North America. While the cost of a funeral was a real burden on poorer people, funeral costs in this country were low compared with elsewhere. There was little or no complaint about standards of service; complaints related almost entirely to prices and pricing practices.
That may lead people to think that there is, in some way, a question about the profits that are made. However, the report goes on to say, very fairly,
For the smallest businesses, disclosed profits of funeral directors were usually no more than sufficient to provide the proprietors with a reasonable remuneration. But for the larger businesses, profits were generous, though not excessive. Profits of coffin manufacturers appeared to be very modest. The Commission were concerned at the steep rise in local authority charges; but most authorities still showed heavy losses on cemeteries and at best only marginal profits on crematoria.
That is just one example of the results of investigation. If that investigation had been conducted under the new régime, the price increase charged by funeral directors would have been frozen.

Mr. John Fraser: I am sorry, but it would not have been frozen. There would have been a reference by the Secretary of State for sectoral examination. There would have been no freeze. One would have to act afterwards. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to come to order. I have tried to be helpful during the debate. What he is saying has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

Mr. Neubert: It has indeed. I am not saying anything about sectoral examinations; I am talking about prices being investigated. Whether it is by price sector or individual company is neither here nor there; the issue is the same. Here was an investigation commissioned by the Price Commission, and it found no evidence of profiteering. Therefore, one

ought to be extremely cautious in subjecting industry at large to this kind of investigation.
Perhaps I may come to the next matter, on which the results have been announced since we were in Committee—intruder alarms.

Mr. John Fraser: I am sorry to intervene again, but intruder alarms have nothing to do with price notifications. With respect, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is out of order. An examination taking place in such cases under the existing régime would need a reference by the Secretary of State, and under the new régime it could again take place only under reference by the Secretary of State. There would be no freeze. It has absolutely nothing to do with cost increases allowed during investigation.

Mr. Neubert: I think that the Minister is being—unwittingly, perhaps—too literal. I am trying to illustrate from incomplete evidence what the likely activities of the Commission may be. It may be that under the new régime an individual price increase for an individual intruder alarm will be sought. I am merely trying to illustrate the thinking and the likely motivation of the Price Commission by reference to the present régime. I know that they are not exactly comparable, but I am trying to give an indication of the care that should be taken to see that justice is done to those investigated.
Again, in the case of intruder alarms, it was also found that
profits were not excessive and that fees and charges had generally increased in step with the Retail Price Index".
If there were to be concern about the price of intruder alarms, the Price Commission would conduct an investigation, prices would be frozen and the company concerned would be in danger of suffering material damage by it.
There are two ways in which damage can be brought to the company involved in an investigation. The first is the potential damage to its reputation. The very fact that a company had been selected would do damage.

Mr. John Fraser: This has nothing to do with cost increases during the course of the investigation.

Mr. Neubert: I leave you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to judge whether my argument is exigent. To my mind, it most certainly is cogent, because we are discussing the potential damage done to a company through an investigation. If I am allowed to develop my argument and to come to the crux of it, perhaps the Minister will be able to understand more clearly than he does now the point that I am making.
There are two ways in which a company could be affected by an investigation. One of them is the potential effect to its reputation, which cannot be erased.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his arguments specifically and closely to the question of cost increases since the previous price increase. It is very important that this should be done.

Mr. Neubert: I can do that straight away by saying that the second way in which the effect would have its impact on the company would be in material damage by the price freeze. The amendment seeks to provide that at least the company should be allowed to recover its unavoidable extra costs during the course of the freeze. We should have preferred very much that companies be safeguarded quite differently—that they should be accepted as innocent until proved guilty and should be allowed to carry through their price increases while they are being investigated. Then, if they are found to be excessive, they would be reversed by what is called, in the popular jargon of the day, the rollback procedure.
We examined this matter very deeply in Committee. It is an alternative for which we are arguing today, but not an altogether satisfactory alternative. Rollback would have ensured justice for the consumer. It would also have ensured justice for the producer being investigated. Only minimal justice is sought by this amendment, because it does not mean that the company investigated will recover its full price increase.
Although I questioned the Secretary of State closely on this in Committee he made clear that once a company is selected by this relatively arbitrary system—which I endeavoured to turn to at the beginning of my speech—it has no guarantee that it will recover what it lost as a result of being investigated.
Even that investigation could go on for one, four or five months and could come up with a clean bill of health, but the company would not recover 100 per cent. of what it lost by postponing its price increase. That is simple injustice, and we are arguing that at the very least it should not be pushed into a loss-making situation.

Mr. John Fraser: That is what I said.

Mr. Neubert: The Minister of State said that that is what he said but he will forgive my scepticism after my having to listen to blatant attempts to ignore our points and after Ministers have taken no notice of our speeches and have read out almost the same answers as they did in Committee.

Mr. John Fraser: My brief, yes.

Mr. Neubert: I did not mention the Minister by name, but having heard Ministers making no attempt to respond to arguments or even to debate during this 21 to 22-hour session I am naturally sceptical that if we let this pass without challenge today no action will be taken to secure the valid point that we have made, which is merely that companies are subject to wildly fluctuating costs and if a particular period is chosen which is so critical to profitability in a key area, particularly if a company is involved in seasonal activities or in commodities on volatile world markets of which we have a classic current example, it should at least be assured that if will get its costs covered.
The Minister says that it is all part of the safeguards, but he will know that industry challenges the proposed safeguards in Clause 9 as not going anywhere near the safeguards that it has requested but being about two-thirds of what it now has.
Is it not simple justice, if a company is selected for a price investigation and even on investigation it is not found to be making excessive profits in charging the price, that after a month has elapsed it should recover all the loss? We have no help of recovering the full market value, but there is some hope of recovering all the costs incurred during a freeze. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) will extract the necessary guarantees to make this watertight, because industry will be satisfied with nothing less.

1.15 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I thought that it would be helpful for me to intervene now, and I do so because I see a genuine sign of the Minister trying to be helpful in dealing with this matter. It was notable that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) mentioned this. It is a consideration of which we have been very conscious on the question of roll-back, and, as the Minister has acknowledged, the people mostly concerned are in food manufacture. Cocoa, coffee and tea have shown commodity price increases of more than 100 per cent. in a year. Whereas it is true that forward buying enables extremes of these increases to be partially smoothed out, the actual increase in one month for a manufacturer can be 10 per cent. The proportion of these raw material costs is very high in the food industry, and the Minister will accept that a year's profit can be lost in one month and three years' profit can be lost in three months of an investigation.
It is true that a variation can be made during a period, but I submit that, where an 80 per cent. erosion safeguard is applicable during an investigation and commodity prices are rising at that rate based on May 1977, that will not be sufficient.
I understand that the point has been put to the Secretary of State, who told the Food and Drinks Industry Council that this would be equivalent to a 100 per cent. margin. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong. Margins in the food manufacturing industry are very small. In 1976 the pre-tax profit as a percentage of sales was ·09 per cent. for 31 leading companies. Therefore, the Minister would clearly not want to see substantial further erosion of such profit margins in the event of an investigation and a rise in commodity prices coinciding with each other.

Mr. John Fraser: That margin is still within the safeguards.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Within the safety net? That is 80 per cent. of the margin and 10 per cent. a month.

Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the hon. Lady has read the consultative document. Apart from one speech at the beginning and two others to delay the Bill, this is the first speech of substance that she has made on it today. There are safeguards

of 2 per cent. on distribution and 3 per cent. minimum on manufacture.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I hope that the Minister will make that point in his speech. To my sorrow, I have read the consultative document and I have spoken on more than the occasions that the Minister mentioned. I moved the first amendment, and I shall be speaking considerably more from now on.
I hope that when the Minister is considering the safeguards—this is an important point relating mainly to safeguards—he will see the great importance of the points we have made, particularly about the coincidence of a priority price rise with an investigation. I should like to learn from the Minister that the undertaking which he has given is that he will consider this proposal for inclusion in the safeguards when they are published. If I am correct in thinking that that is what he said, can he confirm it? On that basis, I would seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: I cannot be precise in that undertaking. I indicated that cost increases could not be automatically allowed for, but I undertook to consider the points made and the question of safeguards. I have now to withdraw that statement in view of the long speech by the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), which did not relate to the topic of the debate. He spoke about intruder alarms while the debate should have been about food distribution and manufacture.

Mr. Michael Morris: I am thoroughly confused. I raised the question of processed meat, which is part of the food industry. I understood that what the Minister said would satisfy my constituent, and that he would look seriously at the raw material situation and say what safeguards could be provided after an investigation. Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman now totally withdraws that because we got into funeral parlours of some other country?

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to mislead the House. When I talk about points which have been raised, I exclude almost entirely the speech made by the hon. Member for Romford.

Mr. Neubert: Surely the Minister is not contriving to leave me in an invidious


position. I was speaking to the amendment, which makes no special reference to the food industry but relates to the general principle of the recovery costs of all companies involved in an investigation. That is a perfectly proper statement to make and I hope that the Minister will reply to it.

Mr. Fraser: It is an issue to which I have already replied and on which the hon. Gentleman followed me.
In order that there shall be no dubiety in subsequent debates, I would make the point that the Food and Drink Industry Council intends to make further representations on the point about increases in costs, especially rapid changes in costs. It proposes to do this in the course of a consultation period on the safeguards which extends up to 15th July. We shall, of course, be glad to consider the matter further in the light of the council's supporting arguments and in the light of the points that have been made in this debate relating to the arguments that the Council will be putting forward in the discussion on the safeguards. What I do not want to do is to give the impression that I shall discuss the wider matter relating to funeral parlours and intruder alarms.

Mr. Giles Shaw: The House will forgive me if I appear to be somewhat confused about how to reply to what the Minister has said. I initially formed the impression that he was genuinely seeking to state that, in view of the problems associated with food manufacturing companies in particular, he was seeking to pay genuine attention to them and in due time to cover them in the regulations which, no doubt, he will have to introduce in relation to price applications. If that is the case, my understanding is that it goes very far towards meeting what we sought to achieve—namely, that where there is clear evidence of allowable costs, which are allowed for in a company's trading position, the regulations under which applications may or may not be frozen will bear that in mind. I take that as being a genuine undertaking by the Government to allow the regulations at least to have a real chance of resolving this problem and that, where the case can be established, the prices will not be frozen during investigation in relation to the element of costs.
We obviously cannot discuss the other factors involved in the regulations because they are not germane to the amendment. In any case, it will be accepted that before the end of the consultation process the Minister is not in a position to discuss them in the House. In so far as we refer to costs, however, my understanding is that the matter of costs which accelerate during a period of investigation will find its way into the regulations. That would particularly allow the food companies to have some security. If that is the undertaking that the Minister gives, I think it is fair that we should withdraw the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: I must be careful not to mislead the House. I did not give an undertaking that all these costs would find their way into the safeguards. I said that in the context of the food and drink industry we would simply consider the point which has been put forward seriously and sincerely. That is the undertaking I give.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I respect the Minister's comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dodsworth: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 6, line 2, at end insert:
'Any such notice as may be given by the Secretary of State pursuant to this subsection shall be laid before the House of Commons in the form of a Statutory Instrument, and shall be subject to annulment by a resolution of that House'.
The subject matter of the amendment is familiar to the House, and to hon. Members who served on the Committee, as a matter of principle. But I felt it proper that on a matter of such significance as the operation of the veto powers we should ventilate the question of the exercise of those powers subject to parliamentary authority. During the Committee stage, there were two interesting debates on this clause with regard to two different amendments. One amendment sought to delete the actual authority itself due to the suspicion of a number of hon. Members about whether it was safe to place such powers in an unlimited form in the hands of the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State referred to the problem of the negative procedure solution during that debate. I recognise the difficulties that he outlined during those proceedings. He said that if there is a freeze, the investigation is suspended and three weeks later the House of Commons might debate a negative resolution and overrule his decision. As I understand the problem, that puts the position quite fairly.
However, I do not feel that it overrides the need for parliamentary control and authority.
Although it is a difficult situation, I do not think that it is beyond the wit of my hon. Friends, or indeed Labour Members, to resolve that matter. That part of the proceedings in the Standing Committee was more concerned with the Secretary of State's power to delete or veto investigations and more concerned about special representations that may be made on behalf of substantial companies in the private sector.
However, there was a further debate on the same point but framed in a different form. An amendment was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) to accept the veto powers in the case of the nationalised industries. That matter gives me some cause for concern. We have some clues about the Minister's intentions. During the Committee stage a number of references were made in various parts of the discussions about parliamentary control and about the furore and excitement there would be if the Secretary of State exercised powers which were beyond the spirit and intention of the House. That is how I understood the terms of that debate and the substance of it.
But the fact is that the suggestions made relate more to statements being made in the House and to Question Time itself. We are all very familiar with the problems that arise over the tabling of Questions about nationalised industries. When we look at the current record of the nationalised industries, we see that Parliament is failing in its duty to exercise authority in an area where it has public responsibility. It is not enough for the Government or Parliament to say that a nationalised industry is not a matter with which we should concern

ourselves. Parliament has to grasp this nettle. It must look at other mechanisms. But that would fall outside the terms of the amendment.
During the course of these discussions, there was an earnest consideration of the affirmative order procedure. That was debated at length. There was some discussion on the negative procedure. I feel that in proposing an amendment of this sort we should be able to ensure that a mechanism exists for Members of this House to highlight discussions if they feel the need to do so. The original consultative document "A New Prices Policy" says under the heading "Investigations":
The Government therefore propose to strengthen the investigatory system as a central part of the new policy. Their objective is to establish a strong but flexible instrument within their overall prices policy, preserving a balance with the other objectives of economic policy including the industrial strategy.
The Government's proposal is a policy of price control within which the Secretary of State would have well defined powers to act in the cases of price rises which are unreasonable or prices which are unjustified. The chief characteristics of the new approach are:
—all prices and all enterprises would come within the scope of the new policy …".
The Secretary of State and his colleagues went to great lengths to argue that these are all-embracing powers with no special exceptions. However the document goes on:
… subject to certain exceptions to be specified by order, (eg. coal and steel prices). The number of exceptions would not be large;
In these circumstances, it is surprising that we are asked to rely on the veto. There would be a parliamentary furore and excitement in this House——

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Hattersley: We have now said on no fewer than five occasions that the examples which the hon. Member gives of the special exceptions are classed as such because we have obligations under the Treaty of Paris. Those obligations do not give this House, the Government or any agent of the Government the right to determine prices. Therefore, by definition, these are special cases. I wonder how many more times I shall have to say it before the hon. Member understands. Also, this is absolutely nothing to do with exercising the veto.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am obliged to the Minister, and I understand him. But I


am seeking to apply an amendment to the Bill which I thought—although the Secretary of State obviously doubts it—would give the House an opportunity of exercising its authority. I fully take the point about certain prices being covered by the ECSC. However, we have an overall responsibility for the nationalised industries and we should assert our rights to take part in any discussion on any veto and on whether there should be any exclusions.
We have heard some of the problems of consultation that might arise with the sponsoring departments. That would be regretted. Especially regrettable would be the possibility of creating suspicion in the minds of hon. Members. We see clearly that prices in the nationalised industries have not been under control, and I have heard repeatedly the explanation given by the Government that they had to recover from the stability of prices within the nationalised industries, and the fact that this was not consistent with the proper economic operation of those industries.
If one examines the indices of all items and compares them with those of December 1973, taking 100 as the base rate, the average has increased to 172. Coke and coal prices have increased to 192, gas to 160—and we have had a very clear illustration of the problems of controlling gas prices and we find that authority rested nowhere at all, other than in terms of political manoeuvre. Electricity prices have increased from 100 to 221 and Post Office charges to 202. All this is a sign and symptom of the state of concern to which we must address ourselves.
While I accept any reflection that the Secretary of State may cast on the form of the amendment, I am quite clear that in this House we have an obligation constantly to address ourselves to this problem. It is not enough for the Secretary of State to tell us that we must trust him or that we have got it all wrong. We must debate it, and that is my purpose in moving this amendment.
I think that we should move towards new means and mechanisms of control. The opportunity to detail that is not available to me today, but the number of amendments that I have tried to table are designed to look at the whole question of public accountability. Other

matters are ventilated by document or debate, but these are our obligations in this House. If there is not proper publication of draft orders and documents, the House and the public will not know, and on that basis I have tabled this amendment.

Mr. Hattersley: Before I talk about the amendment itself I want to clear up one point that has been repeated throughout the debates, and most recently by the proposer of Amendment No. 16, who is apparently not on the afternoon shift. Hon. Members seem to believe that the Bill is based on a principle of "Trust me". It is not. It is based on the principle of "Trust the Price Commission". In order to meet the anxieties of industry we deliberately excluded the idea that any Government, let alone this Government, should be trusted. Therefore, we built in an element of trust around the Price Commission.
The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) continually confused two different items in the Bill. One part of the Bill enables certain commodities to be excluded from the powers. The example he quoted was iron and steel. As I have said, that is excluded for legal reasons. There are other things which are excluded because by their very nature they are not susceptible to price notification and examination. I emphasise to hon. Members that the veto power does not concern things that are excluded from the Bill; it relates to the way in which we treat things which, by definition are within the terms of the Bill. Therefore, only about half of what the hon. Member said is even remotely concerned with the Bill.
I understand the suspicions that arise in the minds of hon. Members. On Second Reading, when I talked about exercising the veto I used the magic phantom words "planning agreements". I know the kind of feeling which they arouse on the Conservative Benches. But there is nothing sinister about the veto. I am sure that it will not be used very frequently, and if it is it will be a cause célèbre. Knowing the nature of the Price Commission, the idea of the Secretary of State of the day publicly announcing that while the Commission had begun an investigation the Government were preventing it from continuing, would be absolutely extraordinary. I


cannot imagine the Price Commission that I have appointed under the chairmanship that I have named acting in such a manner as to require me to use that extraordinary fail-safe protection.
Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches may speculate about these fantasies, but the acceptance of the amendment would be deeply damaging to industry, so much so that, having described the damage that would be done during our Committee stage debates, I wonder why the Opposition thought it necessary to put down a similar amendment with the same basic disadvantage for industry.
The Price Commission would begin en investigation and would either bring about a freeze or refuse to allow the full price increase. In these extraordinary and exceptional circumstances envisaged, because I believed that the Commission had acted in an arbitrary and damaging way, I would veto the process. I suspect that if I did so some Conservatives would be cheering more loudly than all others. If this amendment were carried, industry would not be certain that my veto would spare it from the ravages of the phantom Price Commission. It would have to wait 40 days to see whether the House of Commons was prepared to allow me to protect industry or whether it would remove my power of protection.
This point, as we made clear in Committee, was so against industrial interests that we wondered why the provision was tabled again. I am not so irresponsible as to say to the hon. Gentleman "Carry it if you can", because it is very much in industry's interests that we should not allow it to be damaged by the kind of uncertainty contained in the amendment.

Mr. Neubert: The Secretary of State endeavoured to treat us with sweet reason at the beginning of his remarks, but he ended up by being completely scathing.
I welcome the initiative displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) in tabling the amendment, because he has a consistent record of seeking to probe the accountability of the Executive, and in particular the nationalised industries, to this House.
The right hon. Gentleman would claim that one of the attractive features of the Bill is that it brought nationalised industries into the same régime as private

enterprise bodies for the first time in this respect. If the Secretary of State wonders why we are so concerned about this point and why so much time has been taken in debating the matter thoroughly, as it deserves to be, I must tell him that it flows from the fact that the Government yesterday afternoon did not accept the first amendment. That would have given us an opportunity to review the powers and activities of the Price Commission at the end of the year and at yearly intervals thereafter. We have been obliged to consider all those proposals in the context of a permanent Price Commission which is being established from now for all time.
These issues of accountability are of the greatest importance. The Secretary of State claimed that he did not need to proclaim his widely known honesty and integrity because it was a case of trusting the Price Commission. But only a month or so ago there was a proposal in the Bill for the right hon. Gentleman to have power to initiate price investigations. That was abandoned, following an adverse reaction. However, I believe that my hon. Friend has every right to be alarmed at what is proposed and at the fact that the veto will still exist, whether or not investigations continue.
There is recent evidence to back the reasonableness of our amendment on the subject of the nationalised industries. On that subject I do not think we would press very hard the argument that the Minister might seek to exercise the veto and revert to other objectives, such as planning agreements. We have a doubt about the possibility of the Minister's failing to veto an investigation into the nationalised industries. We have had a recent example of this in the 10 per cent. increase in gas prices from 1st April. That was condemned by the Price Commission as not coming within the code but by the use of ministerial power that increase was imposed on the gas industry. If, in comparable circumstances, the Price Commission proposed such an investigation and the Secretary of State vetoed an increase, we would regard that matter as sufficiently important to justify the exertion of pressure in the House of Commons by one or other of the procedures available—for example, that which is proposed in the amendment.
1.45 p.m.
The House has had no opportunity to debate that issue, yet it is an important issue of principle. The Secretary of State, with the aid of powers given to him by the legislation, was able to establish an important principle. There has been no opportunity, other than by questions, to raise the matter in the House. It came up at the end of March when, suddenly, the Government and the Opposition faced an imminent General Election. There was a vote of confidence and the opportunity to debate that price increase was lost. Therefore, we are grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling this amendment and for giving us an opportunity to discuss this subject.
Another matter that is still pending is the commissioning of the Drax B power station in advance of the electricity generating industry's needs. There may be a conflict between Government objectives and the direct and immediate consumer interest, and the Secretary of State may have to exercise his veto. Although what was proposed was an outlandish and remote possibility, there have been recent situations in which the Secretary of State might have chosen to exercise his veto. There is grave concern about the accountability to this House of the Executive's actions. Since it is proper to probe the relative rôles of Parliament and the Executive, we welcome the opportunity that discussion of this amendment has given to debate these issues.

Mr. Tim Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) was right to imply that a constitutional issue of some importance is at stake on this amendment. Following the Tameside and Laker Skytrain cases, it is clear that the Secretary of State's decision is not subject to review by the House of Commons.
I accept that the amendment does not perhaps provide the most satisfactory way of a decision to be reviewed. The decision would be subject to review by the courts. This power would probably be used on only rare occasions, and I do not see how the amendment would damage industry.
The 40-day period involving a resolution of the House would take up less time than a court action which could take a number of months to decide. The power given to the Price Commission in Clause 1 clearly is subject to review in the

courts, and that matter has been established in this debate. Indeed, that is clear from the criteria set out in subsection (2). It is clear that the discretion is open to challenge.
The power of veto is described in Clause 4(3):
If the Secretary of State considers that an increase in respect of which he has received such a notification should not be the subject of an investigation
it will be his decision. No criteria are laid down on how he should reach that decision.
It could be argued that if a decision were overridden there would be a veto as a last word. I go along with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) in proposing the additional powers and review by the House. I support the amendment.

Mr. Dodsworth: I am obliged for this opportunity to respond briefly to the debate. The doubts that I expressed earlier, which are the basis of my amendment, obviously are shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have in mind what was said by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on Second Reading, on the subject of parliamentary control. He said:
After this Bill is on the statute book and we have conned the country into thinking that we have toughened up price control, the Treasury may decide to tell the Post Office to put another 1p or 2p on the price of a stamp in order to cut down the borrowing of the Post Office. The Price Commission will not have a chance to conduct an investigation. It will be cut out straight away by the Minister."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1321.]
That may be unthinkable to the Minister, but apparently it is not unthinkable to one of his hon. Friends.
In the debate in Committee amendments were withdrawn at that stage, or were not pressed, but we expected the Secretary of State to bring forward an amendment on Report to clarify the point. I feel that these matters have now been fully canvassed and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 6, line 7, leave out 'may if they think fit' and insert 'shall'.
This amendment was discussed—and there was a tie in the vote on it—in Committee. It concerns the situation that would arise when a company making a price application which was the subject of consideration and investigation by the Commission withdrew its application. It is our contention that when a price application is withdrawn the need for investigation should also be withdrawn. However, the Bill as now drafted in Clause 4(4) allows the matter to be the subject of discussion and consideration by the Commission. I remind hon. Members of the wording of Clause 4(4):
If, after a notification in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section has been given in respect of an increase, the relevant person gives notice to the Commission stating that he withdraws the notice of the increase in consequence of which the notification was given, the Commission may if they think fit give to the Secretary of State a notice cancelling the notification.
In our view the withdrawal of the price application should carry with it a mandatory requirement that the Commission should cease its investigation. The Minister said in Standing Committee that he did not believe that the Price Commission would continue with an investigation when the application for a price increase had been withdrawn. The Minister said that in good faith. However, at this stage of the game we have no idea how well the Price Commission will operate. It is just as necessary that we should write such a simple requirement into the Bill so that there will be no doubt that the Commission should operate in this way.
There has been a tendency—and this has been exemplified by some of the Secretary of State's remarks in previous debates—to leave everything to the Commission. The Minister took that view when it was suggested that we might be leaving too much to him. It is part of our intention that although the Government are forcing the Bill through, the Bill will not pass finally into law without our making it clear that the Commission is given the correct guidance as to how it should behave and a guideline to its activities. None of the guidance that the House gives is more important than in the matter of the investigatory powers of a prices application.
It is therefore appropriate to put the amendment before the House again, and,

hopefully, to seek agreement from the Government so that we can right the Bill and obtain this small concession. That would have the effect of making it clear to companies that one way of stopping the application—and many hon. Members may think that this view is desirable—would be by withdrawing the cause of such an investigation. I believe that I am in order in separating investigations of price applications from other kinds of investigation. I propose the amendment in the knowledge that it was nearly accepted in Committee and that the Minister feels that this is the way in which the Price Commission should operate. I hope that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Michael Morris: I should like to draw an analogy between the Price Commission and other kinds of commission. We have withdrawn the discretionary powers of the New Towns Commission and made them mandatory.
The Minister may believe that it would be fairly exceptional for a price application connected with food to be withdrawn. However, there was the internal situation on the coffee market where there was a 60 per cent. rise in coffee prices in one week. If we look back at the coffee market it is possible to recall that a few years ago there was a sudden turn-round in that market. We hope that that will happen again.
The Minister must know that it is in an enormous disruption for any company to have the Price Commission descend upon it. No industry lightly enters into allowing that to happen, and therefore it is only fair that if the company decides to withdraw its price increase application in order to hold off and reconsider the situation, it should know that the result of that decision will be a withdrawal by the Price Commission and not investigation. Companies need to have a degree of certainty. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: The point is fairly narrow but first I must withdraw something that I said in Committee. I suggested that there might be circumstances in which a company could withdraw an application and then submit another immediately. That is extremely hypothetical and I wish to withdraw any suggestion that I made in Committee that the average category 1 and 2 firm would


do any such thing. It was purely hypothetical. If a company made an application for a price increase and then, while the investigation was in train, withdrew the price increase, it is likely that the Commission would have to consider the criteria in Clause 2 in deciding not only whether to initiate the investigation but whether to terminate it. There is a duty upon the Commission to consider the criteria in relation to the permanence of the investigation as well as to common sense. It is likely that it could be a duty upon the Price Commission, if the criteria under Clauses 2 and 3 were being fulfilled, to end the investigation.
I have searched my mind, and there is no one convincing example that I can give about whether it might be in the interest of the Commission to continue and to publish its report. In many cases the Commission will want to husband resources carefully and will not consider it possible to continue investigations where price increase applications have been withdrawn. However, it may be that at the end of an inquiry into a price increase the Commission will decide that it is in the public interest—because a great deal of investigation has been carried out—to continue the investigation. On the other hand, one must husband the resources of the Commission carefully, and there may be some value, if the inquiry has gone as far as the report being produced in draft, for the report to be published even if it could do no more than reassure the public. In most cases I assume that the Commission would terminate its report and that it would have a duty to do that.

Mr. Neubert: I welcome the Minister's reconsideration of the views that he expressed in Committee. We consider it timely and we feel that his remark in Committee was rather neurotic. The Minister now agrees on that. The Price Commission must be able to trust category 1 and 2 companies to act responsibly in such matters. Certainly the sanction of public opinion when the issue received publicity would be sufficient to warn off any such company.
We are not sufficiently reassured by what the Minister has said. The price application is the trigger that gives rise to the investigation, and if a company withdraws an application for an increased

price, it should be left to get on with its business.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 240.

[For Division List No. 172, see c. 1647]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that a number of applications have been made to you or your predecessors in the Chair on the possible adjournment of the debate, principally in the context of the business for Wednesday, which we are not likely to reach. I understand that there is a procedural reason why the Chair should not receive a motion to adjourn for the purpose of allowing the House to proceed to Transport Questions. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that 57 hon. Members have tabled Questions on transport matters, and I feel sure that the Government must be anxious to reveal some of the secrets about their transport policy. In the belief that the Government must be anxious to accommodate the House and to answer some at least of the 57 Questions, will you advise us whether you would be prepared now to receive a motion from the Government to adjourn the debate so that the House may proceed at 2.30 to take Transport Questions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but a dilatory motion was moved and debated for a reasonable period. The Chair is not prepared to accept such a motion at the present moment.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser
rose——

Mr. Moate: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Naturally, I accept what you say, but I do not think that the House would necessarily agree that a reasonable amount of time was provided on that occasion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is entirely for the discretion of the Chair.

Mr. Moate: I understand that the motion was debated some three hours ago and that under the normal convention of the House this would be a reasonable


time to make a further submission. I am asking whether the Government might be given the opportunity of moving a motion now. If they are concerned about Transport Questions, surely they will move such a motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Government and not for the Chair.

Mr. John Fraser: Mr. John Fraser
rose——

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not remarkable that throughout the whole of last night the Leader of the House appears to have voted but to have resisted coming into the Chamber, thereby denying the House of the benefit of his advice and leaving it uninformed of the Government's intention?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that the lengthy negotiations over the Bermuda Agreement have been concluded in the early hours of today. My understanding of the position of the Department of Trade is that the Secretary of State would welcome an opportunity to make a statement. I have consulted Mr. Speaker's Office and it appears that there is no way in which any contingency could be met by way of a statement in the light of the Government's intransigence. If it is not possible on this occasion for the Secretary of State to make an important statement, would I be in order in asking you, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

2.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he has consulted Mr. Speaker's Office. No doubt he will receive a reply from Mr. Speaker in due course.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been a number of attempts by the Minister to rise. I do not know whether he desires to do so in connection with this question or whether he wishes to proceed with the business.

Mr. John Fraser: I simply want to get on with having a form of price con-

trol in this country. I do not know whether I am now permitted to do so.

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the House is in a difficulty. It has been treated in the most extraordinary way by the Leader of the House. We now have only 12 minutes to half-past two, after which the Leader of the House cannot say anything to the House by way of a statement or anything else. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the House should so obviously absent himself from the House, thus not serving the position that he should hold—namely, that of advising Members of the House of Commons. Where is he?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in a unique position because we are losing the whole of the business for Wednesday. We are losing Prayers, and the occupants of the Labour Benches need praying for. We are also losing a Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule to amend the European Communities Act. I should have thought that that would appeal to Labour Members. Is it possible to have Prayers, Questions and the Bill to amend the European Communities Act after 10 o'clock? I understand that it will still be in this day's business if we take those matters after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer to that is "No". If we sit beyond half-past two, the business for Wednesday cannot be taken, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. Can we now proceed?

Mr. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would clarify one point. Am I correct in thinking that if the business goes beyond 2.30 p.m. any Questions that have been tabled do not, as we might have expected, receive a Written Answer but must be retabled, thereby ensuring that the Government gain several days, in which time the information might well have been of interest to our constituents?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The Questions must be retabled.

Mr. Adley: I shall not pursue the last point of order. Mr. Speaker's Office advised me that there was no way in which a statement may be made. If war is declared on this country we must sit here until this piece of legislation is finished. Is that not a slightly unsatisfactory situation? May I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use your good offices to see that if this situation ever arises again——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member's point is hypothetical. This is a matter for Mr. Speaker, who will no doubt deal with it in due course.

Mr. Fell: This has become a farce. The job of the Leader of the House is to look after the worries of Back Benches and other Members on both sides of the House. Surely we may have something better than a junior Minister present at a stage such as this, when hon. Members—or, at least, Opposition Members—are obviously worried about what is going on. Why may we not have the Leader of the House here, instead of his skulking in the shadows somewhere behind the Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 20, leave out from 'that' to 'or' in line 21 and insert:
'the whole or part of the increase ought not to be restricted by virtue of subsection (2)(i) of this section'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 39.

Mr. Fraser: The Government made clear in discussions and statements before the Bill was published that, in satisfying the requirements of the Bill, where a price increase was not restricted as a result of an investigation, during the currency of the existence of a code—if the code does continue to exist after 1st August—a restriction would still be placed on price increases by the code. The Bill was so drafted. However, on examining the wording of the Bill one may mistakenly receive the impression, from the wording of the clause and a later clause, that the fact that a price increase was not restricted after an investi-

gation meant that it was similarly not restricted by the code.

Mr. Neubert: On a point of order. I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Minister for raising this point of order. The House is in a difficulty. You, Mr. Speaker, look after the interests of all Members of Parliament. The Leader of the House looks after the interests of all hon. Members, especially Back Bench Members. There is a serious situation that is worrying many hon. Members. It may be amusing to some but it is not amusing to others.
Many Questions must go by the board. The Leader of the House has made no appearance to give an explanation to the House. We have exactly five minutes before all the Questions, statements and other matters must disappear for today.
I know that it is not within your power, Mr. Speaker, to order the Leader of the House to appear here and make a statement, but I am certain that many hon. Members, especially members of the Opposition, would welcome a sight of the Leader of the House of Commons at such a time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in my power to ask anybody to come into the Chamber. I hope that the Minister may proceed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: I shall not take any points of order as long as the Minister is speaking.
I heard the earlier exchange. I was on my way into the Chamber. Out of courtesy to everyone concerned, I waited until the points of order had been settled by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was glad to do so.
If there are interruptions on points of order it will lead to disorderly debates.
I can do nothing at all in this matter. The House has continued talking. The action taken by the Government to move the closure or the Adjournment is not my concern. We have called the Minister to address the House. I hope that he will now be allowed to do so.

Mr. Adley: Mr. Adley rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn hon. Gentlemen that if they want to argue about the 2.30 p.m. Questions,


that is not a point of order for me. If anybody tries to do that, I shall ask him to resume his seat, as a first step.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to clarify one point that you made? You indicated that the possibility of Government statements is not a matter for you, as was my understanding from your office. My request is that for future reference we should do something about this situation.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Deputy Speaker is never wrong. Therefore, it looks as if I am wrong. I know that we are getting into a disorderly position. I have no doubt that it would only have lasted another two minutes, in any case.

Mr. Fraser: I was saying that one might mistakenly receive the impression, from reading the clause and some of the later clauses, that if a price increase was unrestricted following an investigation, it might also be unrestricted by the code as long as the code endured. That was not the intention. It is not so drafted. But to remove the possibility of anybody being mistaken and to clarify the wording of the Bill, I move the amendment.

Mr. Crouch: I am most careful, Mr. Speaker, not to interrupt the Minister bearing in mind your injunction to hon. Members not to do so. I am most careful to speak before the dreadful hour of 2.30 p.m., when it appears to me that Parliament, representing all the people of the country, will lose 22nd June. Is there nothing that we can do to save this day?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: It is incredible that a Minister from the Department of Transport should be sitting on the Government Front Bench, yet we are to be denied the 57 Questions put down to the Secretary of State for Transport, which should come up in one minute's time. Is that not an appalling abuse of Parliament and democracy?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that that has happened before.

Mr. Neubert: As interest in the Bill has suddenly revived, to judge by the increased attendance in the Chamber, perhaps it is as well if I preface my remarks with the general premise that I made on an earlier amendment. If hon.

Members should wonder why such thoroughness is being applied in the consideration of the Bill, it is because, in not accepting our first amendment yesterday, the Government made it necessary for us to take account of the fact that the Price Commission is now to be made permanent. Its accompanying powers will be equally permanent. Therefore, we are required to give the closest scrutiny to all the proposals in the Bill.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wondered whether you were yet able to answer my question about our losing 22nd June.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right: we shall go straight from 21st to 23rd June.

Mr. Neubert: It is appropriate, in that case, that we should actually be in the twenty-third hour of debate.
There is a danger at this stage, after a largely sleepless night, that the issues will be distorted. I am therefore concerned to make it clear that the permanence of the powers and the institution to be established means that we should pursue these points thoroughly.
The matter concerned in the amendments is not new. They give effect to an intention of the Minister's from the beginning and implement a basic element of injustice by discriminating against distributors. This was well expressed on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who spoke not only as a senior and experienced Member but also as Chairman of the Retail Consortium. Explaining that body's objections to this proposal, he said:
Not only were we confronted with new powers for both the Secretary of State and the Price Commission, but we learned that we were to be faced with a continuation of the Price Code and a continuation for retailers of the full extent of both gross and net margin control. That is an extension of control that cannot be justified. The distributive industry is now so hamstrung that we shall see a further reduction of investment in it and a further drop in employment. Confidence has been shaken, and the effects of that have yet to be seen."—[Official Report, 27th April 1977; Vol. 930, c. 1300.]
My right hon. Friend might have added that since 1974 the distributive industry has been subject to a 10 per cent. blanket cut of its margins. When the Minister


proposes something to make these companies liable under both counts—even if they avoid the investigatory powers of the Commission they will still be subject to the code—we say that that is discrimination and that something should be done to redress the balance of advantage. For that reason, we shall vote against the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 212.

[For Division List No. 173, see c. 1649]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 8, line 8, after 'and', insert:
'"subsection (2)(b) of this section" in paragraph (a) and the words '.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Clause 5

PROPOSALS TO INVESTIGATE PRICES OR MARGINS

2.45 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 7, line 4, after 'goods', insert—
'and which includes an increase made after 31st May 1977'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 33.

Mr. Fraser: I do not know whether I am delaying the House by speaking to this amendment. However, I think that I should say something about it because it is a concession to the Opposition. I repeat, this is a concession to the Opposition.
In Committee, I undertook to consider an Opposition amendment which proposed a cut-off for investigations into the prices of a non-pre-notifier under Clause 5. Amendment No. 23 provides that the price of a non-pre-notifier will be liable to investigation only if it has been increased since 31st May 1977. The other amendments are consequential and provide for regulations laying down what constitutes an increase in a price level.
We have chosen 31st May 1977 because it gives a little time before the operation of the new policy on 1st August. We had to choose that earlier date to prevent

non-pre-notifiers getting in price increases between 31st May and 1st August which might not be discovered for some time. Generally speaking, this meets the point made by the Opposition, and I am pleased to offer this concession.

Mr. Neubert: In the face of such blandishments and the offering of a concession—a rare, exotic fruit in our experience of the Bill—it may seem churlish to say that I am not alogether sure that it is a concession that we sought.
In Committee, we asked that the price increases liable to investigation should be those occurring only during the currency of the new régime. This amendment brings the date forward from 31st July 1977, which was the purport of our amendment, to 31st May. Presumably the Minister is anxious to prevent any anticipation of the Bill's effects by people seeking price increases immediately, knowing that the increases may be subject to the new régime and perhaps unacceptable to it if they are put in after the Bill has been enacted. For that reason, we find it a little uncharitable.
As we are already about three weeks past that point, will the Minister indicate whether there has been any evidence of companies acting irresponsibly by anticipating the Bill and putting in price increases which perhaps would not be justified under the new régime but which, presumably, can be justified under the existing Price Code régime? We cannot see why we are being offered a concession which takes place from 1st August rather than 1st June, when it would already have been in effect for three weeks.

Mr. John Fraser: I told the Committee that there was a problem involving the non-pre-notifiers and that we could not choose the same date as that which operates for those who notify their increases. Non-pre-notifying firms are involved, and I have not been notified of price increases in anticipation of 31st July 1977.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but it will not do to say that they are non-pre-notifying firms. We are talking about small distributors who are continuing with the Price Code which they believe to be more


rigorous on them, and whose profit margins are more eroded than those of large notifying firms.
The element of redistribution in the change of date from the one for which we asked to the one that the Minister has given is not acceptable to distributors who are already in a disadvantaged position as a result of the code. If there were an investigation now, some type of rollback in the code could happen at the same time because the provision is being made retrospective to May.

Mr. Fraser: "Retrospective" is not the correct word. We had to choose a dividing line. It is unlikely that the Commission would mount an investigation into price increases of small firms that are non-notifiers unless, on the face of it, they were unjustified. One must choose between protecting firms and protecting the general public. We have chosen a date which is fair and which is only two months before 31st July. If we had chosen a later date it might have encouraged people to increase their prices to the disadvantage of the public.
If the Opposition do not like the concession that I have offered them, they know what they can do with it. I have genuinely tried to act in the way I said I would, although I warned hon. Members that the date would not be the same as that for notifying firms.

Mr. Neubert: Unfortunately, the Minister continues to contend that this is a concession. We cannot regard it as such. We think that it is retrospective and casts slight on companies. At a time of rapid inflation, two months can be a long time in a highly competitive market for a company that must cover its costs.

Mr. Fraser: Would the hon. Member like me to ask to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Fraser: I have not yet requested that.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again, to be sure.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 7, line 7, leave out from 'may' to notify' in line 13.—[Mr. John Fraser.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 221.

[For Division List No. 174, see c. 1653]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Government Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 have all been discussed. If it is for the convenience of the House, by leave of the House I shall put the Question on those amendments en bloc.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 8, line 2, leave out '"whole or part of the increase to be unrestricted"' and insert
'from "whole" to "section"'.

No. 27, in page 8, line 3, after 'price', insert 'ought'.

No. 28, in page 8, line 8, after 'and', insert
'"subsection (2)(b) of this section" in paragraph (a) and the words'.

No. 29, in page 8, line 10, after 'increase"', insert 'in paragraph (b)'.

No. 30, in page 8, line 11, after 'and', insert
'"section 5(3) of this Act" and'.

No. 31, in page 8, line 24, after 'provision' insert'—(a)'.

No. 32, in page 8, line 25, after 'and', insert '(b)'.

No. 33, in page 8, line 27, after 'distributors', insert
'and
(c) as to what for the purposes of subsection (l)(a) of this section is an increase made after the date there mentioned'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Mr. Shersby: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 8, line 28, at end insert:
'(7) No investigation of a margin of a distributor of goods may be carried out by the Commission under this section, except in cases where the margin in question exceeds the relevant margin reference level or levels of the distributor of goods as determined under the provisions of a code which is in operation


at the time of the investigation and has been prepared or altered under the provisions of section 2 of the Counter-Inflation Act 1973.'
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that no investigation of a margin of a distributor of goods may be carried out by the Commission under this clause except in certain very precisely specified circumstances. The position at present is that under the clause the Commission can initiate an investigation of a price which does not have to be pre-notified to the Commission but not the price of a distributor or the margin of a distributor. Under subsection (6) regulations may be made defining a distributor and a margin, but only the gross margins are to be investigated.
My reason for moving the amendment is that, despite the tributes paid to the distributors by the Minister of State during the Committee stage, there is still concern among many distributors that their sector may have to bear the brunt of the Government's price control policy. Distributors also fear that the powers contained in the Bill may be used against them unreasonably as the result of pressure on the Government—as distinct from the manufacturers, for whom it is intended that the allowable cost rules should be abolished.
When we debated this point in Committee, the Minister of State was forthcoming. He said:
Wholly to exempt the distributors from any kind of investigation would be a mistake, notwithstanding their good record. It would give them an unjustified advantage over manufacturers. Although I think that the circumstances of investigation might be rare, we should be unwise if we omitted that power from the Bill.
I was glad that the Minister admitted that the circumstances of investigation might be rare. I think that that statement alone is an excellent reason for accepting the amendment today. After all, it is proposed that distributors should be subject not only to all controls under the present code—gross and net margin controls—but also to the new investigation and examination procedures. On grounds of equity, I suggest that distributors, if they are to continue to be subject to the present gross and net margin controls, should be exempt from investigations.
As the House knows, distribution is a highly competitive industry in the United

Kingdom. It is well known that the distributors here are more efficient than their counterparts of the Continent of Europe. In Australia, distributors are exempt from the burdensome task of notifying certain information. Thus, in Australia there is some recognition of their special position and differentiation in their position as compared wth manufacturers.
My deep concern is that, as a result of an investigation under the clause, a distributor could have his margin reduced even though it had not been increased, whereas the worst that a manufacturer can suffer is to have the price increase prevented. The distributor, unlike the manufacturer, does not know whether he is at risk from an investigation. I know that the Minister of State shares my view about the efficient, competitive nature of our distribution industry. He said in Committee that consumers had a great deal to be thankful for about the way in which our distribution industry was organised. He was at one with me in agreeing that the level of prices was in part being restrained by that degree of efficiency and competition. The Minister added in Committee:
in sharp distinction to the situation in some other parts of the world." [Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17th May 1977; c. 278, 275.]
Why, therefore, must the Minister of State be so unwilling, as he was in Committee, to accept my amendment? Why does he adopt what is perhaps an unnecessarily rigid view? I can only hope that, after the interval since our pleasant exchanges on this subject on 17th May, the Minister will be willing to give demonstrable proof of his admiration of our distributors and our distribution industry by agreing to accept my amendment.
Quite apart from the level of agreement between us on the efficiency of the distributors, there is, as the Minister knows, a wide recognition of the employment opportunities that the industry offers. As the hon. Gentleman said during the Committee stage,
It takes quite a disproportionate number of young people from school and finds work for them."—
Earlier this week we heard the Prime Minister say in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) that the Government, together


with our European partners, are giving urgent consideration to the problems of teenage unemployment. That is a matter which concerns every hon. Member in the House. Why do not the Government make a start today by exempting the distributors who provide much employment for teenagers from the bureaucracy of the Price Commission in the way in which I have suggested? After all, we were very close to agreement in Committee. The debate on this topic was a most interesting one, such was the close identity of our views on this section of the industry.
3.15 p.m.
I know that the Government gave 70 per cent. stock relief last year and also extended investment relief to cover investment in shops. All that is welcome. In fact, it is clear from what the Minister of State said in reply to my amendment in Committee that he regards the distributors as very much the blue-eyed boys. But they are not to be lulled into the belief that they will be left alone to get on with being efficient and competitive and to continue providing jobs for young people. I say this because in Committee the Minister spoilt what was one of the best speeches he made, and a good deal of harmony as well, by saying:
It might be that within that highly successful, very competitive industry there are one or two distributors who would merit an individual investigation, and it would be wrong if we ruled out that possibility."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17th May 1977; c. 278, 275, 276.]
I put it to the Minister that today provides him with a very good opportunity to change his mind and to put the distributors and the distribution industry very much on trust in order to keep up their good record. I therefore appeal to him this afternoon to think again and to demonstrate the opinion which he and I hold of this excellent industry by accepting the amendment.

Mr. Gow: Clause 24 provides that the Bill shall come into force on 1st August. When you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the Chair a few hours ago, the Secretary of State urged upon us, as one of the reasons why we ought to continue with our discussions, the fact that if we did not complete our discussions this country might be without price control on 1st August. In a sense that was a charge flung at the

Opposition Benches with the enthusiastic support of Labour Members. Can there, by implication, be a person as wicked, sinful, and irresponsible as to believe that the Conservative Opposition could contemplate a United Kingdom without price control?

Mr. Heffer: Yes.

Mr. Gow: I wish to pick up the gauntlet flung down with such a vigorous flourish by the Secretary of State a few hours ago. I assert that this nation, which has known rigorous price control during the period that the Secretary of State's party has been in office, has had price control over the past three years and more. At one stage during this period of stringent price control, the year-on-year rate of inflation rose to 27 per cent. and the current rate of price increases is 17 per cent. Therefore, since we are now considering the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that there should be a restriction on the powers to investigate, I and my hon. Friends who have viewed so-called price control with due scepticism, rejoice that some restriction is to be imposed upon those powers of investigation.
There are those of us—I respond directly to the Secretary of State's challenge—who believe that the power of a Commission appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate prices, to require that information be submitted to it, and ultimately to impose penalties, has not been conspicuously successful during the last three years in producing stability of prices. Therefore we can congratulate my hon. Friend on his limited virtue, because to restrict the power of investigation is at least a step in the right direction.
One of the unseen attenders at our debates is Dr. Witteveen, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. I wonder whether he will consider that the amendment as drafted by my hon. Friend is sufficient. He is very assiduous in studying the misdemeanours of this Government, and very much more assiduous in studying the virtues of my hon. Friend. I wonder whether he will think that the amendment goes anything like far enough. [Interruption.] I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). In fact,


I would welcome the opportunity to respond to him. But I do wish that if he had any observations to make he would make them in a way that I can understand, or remain silent.
Happily, Dr. Witteveen has a strong influence on the economic policy of the Government, and that is a matter of great rejoicing for me. We have the Chancellor of the Exchequer on our side in this amendment. On 15th December last, the Chancellor wrote to Dr. Witteveen. I quote from that letter:
An essential element of the Government's strategy will be to bring about a substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector.
If there is to be a reduction in the share of resources required for the public sector there must be a corresponding increase in the share of resources for the private sector. But as long as we continue with the whole paraphernalia of investigation and price control, the share of resources available for the private sector will not increase. It must be increased as an essential element of Government economic strategy. As long as we have that need, as defined by the Chancellor, any opposition to it is the continuance of the pretence that by passing Acts of Parliament we can control inflation.
I support my hon. Friend's timid amendment. I wish that it had gone very much further. Happily, my hon. Friend is moving slowly in the direction of logic and sense, and slowly we are learning to repudiate the mythology of the past. I hope that in the next instalment of the Price Commission Bill my hon. Friend will take his courage in his hands and table an amendment to restrict very much further these investigatory powers.

Mr. Godber: I want to intervene very briefly. This amendment has my unqualified support, and it is in line with representations that I have made to the Secretary of State elsewhere and in another capacity.
It seems totally unnecessary to have the strict margin controls that we have already and at the same time to give to the Price Commission the powers of investigation into distributors that are given in this Bill.
On Second Reading I called attention to certain statistics issued by the Price Commission, which show conclusively that the level of profit of distributors in this country is very much below that permitted by the present Price Code. My colleagues will recall that both gross and net margins are controlled under the present Price Code. Gross margins at present are less than 90 per cent. of the gross margins introduced in 1973, when the Price Code was first instituted. They were cut back from 100 per cent. to 90 per cent. by this Government when they came to power.
The net margins at present are not being made by a single distributor and certainly not by a single retailer. There is a safeguard clause in the present Price Code which provides that if net margins are below 80 per cent. of that permitted in the code it is possible for the gross margins to exceed 100 per cent. and rise to 105 per cent.
Gross margins are so severely controlled that the safeguard clause is used by a large number of retailers. In recent months the on-cost returns suffered so much that the gross margins in many cases were over 90 per cent. but well below 100 per cent., and therefore the safeguard clause has been used in almost every case, because net margins were well below 80 per cent.
The margins of distributors are very much less today than they were in 1973. The factor controlling prices in the shops today is something that labour Members find totally impossible to understand—competition in the High Street. This is the real and active deterrent to increased prices. This is what is keeping prices down, not Government legislation.
That is why I agree entirely with my hon. Friend when he repudiates the implications made by the Secretary of State that the abolition of control would be a disaster for housewives. In distribution this is utter nonsense, and the Minister knows it. He knows that it is competition that is keeping prices down. This is fully substantiated in the Price Commission's own report.

Mr. Heffer: I really did not intend to intervene, but the right hon. Member says that competition in the High Street is keeping prices down. That was applauded by other Conservatives. But


there is a great deal of mythology about competition in the High Street. An increasingly monopolistic position is developing and certainly the production side is getting into fewer and fewer hands. It is not true to say that there is the same kind of competition in the High Street that there was once. To some extent the monopolistic position in many areas is creating higher prices and there is a need for price controls to correct that situation.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member has twisted the argument that I was developing. He switched from the High Street to the producers. I do not agree with him in any case. I spoke on behalf of the distributors, as Chairman of the Retail Consortium, and in that capacity I was developing my argument. In distribution there is no doubt that there is competition in every sector, other than those controlled by the nationalised industries. That is the only place where competition does not operate in distribution.
I have no authority to speak about production. However, I doubt whether there is a significant kind of monopoly situation. If there is, the Government have powers to stop it under the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I understand the hon. Member's approach, but I wish he would look at the figures issued by the impartial Price Commission. The figures that I quoted bear out every word that I have said about competition in the distributive trades. This amendment refers only to the distributive trades, so I concentrated on them.
The hon. Member has only to go into any supermarket to see intense competition. One set of stores recently repudiated the use of stamps because it wanted to reduce prices, because of competition from other chain stores. There is intense competition. What I have said is backed up solidly by the Price Commission reports and the information from the Department. The Minister of State cannot deny it.
In relation to distribution, on which I have authority to speak, there is genuine and continuing competition. I think that there is genuine competition in all aspects other than those controlled by the nationalised industries.
3.30 p.m.
This amendment is justified because if there is margin control, as there undoubtedly is, and a system that is not breached, these additional powers to investigate a particular retailer are unnecessary and, I believe, harmful to individual retailers. If a retailer is to be investigated, the investigation takes some time and even if the person is vindicated the fact is that the firm will be damaged. I believe that the amendment deserves to be accepted and that there is no justification for the position that the Secretary of State has taken up. I ask the Minister, despite the views of his hon. Friends below the Gangway, to accept the amendment.
Reference has been made to the employment of school leavers, who are very much in our minds at present. It is true to say that retailers are large absorbers of school leavers. At present, because of intense competition retailers are having to cut back on the number of school leavers taken in for employment. If we choke back retailers' efforts still further, they will be reluctant to take on additional school leavers.

Mr. John Fraser: I am glad that the House has heard the authoritative voice of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I made clear in Committee, and I do so again, that the vast majority of the distribution industry, particularly High Street outlets, are efficient and provide cheap, efficient and reliable service for the consumers.
I also agree that to a large extent competition and not the operation of the Price Code has had the effect of restraining prices in these areas. If I grant him that, I ask him not to sing from the rooftops the allegation that the Price Code has had the effect of depressing employment investment and business activity. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If I grant him that competition has had a great effect, he cannot in the same breath say that the operation of the Price Code has had deleterious effects and has sapped confidence. On that I am sure we are in agreement.

Mr. Godber: If the Minister accepts that argument, that is surely sufficient to justify the acceptance of the amendment.

Mr. Fraser: It is not sufficient, but so far we have reached agreement on some points.
I do not think that the distributors in the retail food and drink sector have very much to fear. If I may call in aid a recent publication of the Price Commission, I would instance the fact that the sector's average net profit margins in the fourth quarter of 1976 was 1·8 per cent. of turnover. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, distributors are given a safeguard level of 2 per cent. of turnover. They cannot therefore complain that they are being harassed. I have made clear that safeguard levels are not norms but safety nets.
I ask the House to consider two matters. First, with the full support of the Opposition and of my hon. Friends, Price Code will continue for only a further year. If the code goes altogether, as would happen if the amendment were carried, or certainly if the intention behind it were adopted, there would be no form of investigatory system at all. That is the first weakness of the amendment. Its second weakness is a lack of confidence in the operation of the Bill and of the Price Commission, which I believe to be utterly unjustified.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said in her only speech of substance on the Bill—now a matter of 24 hours ago—that she felt there was not widespread abuse of the consumer, or words to that effect. I agree with the hon. Lady, but that does not mean that there cannot be individual cases of abuse of the consumer, and that can be said to be as true of distribution as of any other area.
Let me give two examples—one involving Australia and the other this country. In Australia there has been considerable concern and investigation by the Prices Justification Tribunal into the distribution of spares for foreign cars. A semi-monopoly exists, and there has been widespread complaint by motoring organisations and car owners. Jointly they have decided to conduct an investigation in one isolated area where it has been possible to use one's market position to abuse the consumer.
Let me give another example from this country, where there has already been an investigation by the Price Commission,

namely, the distribution of bananas. Everybody knows that the banana trade is controlled by two or three companies—the United Fruit Company, now known as Fyffe's, Geest who operate in the Windward Islands, and another large consortium with interests in Jamaica. I do not say anything against those companies, but in them we have a potential complex monopoly situation. Those companies are capable, if they care to exercise their powers, of exploiting the shopper and the developing world. I do not make any allegations against the firms concerned, but I am seeking to illustrate the complex monopoly situation in distribution. Power to investigate evidence of consumer abuse should not be excluded.
Cases where investigation into distribution would take place would be limited. The House may be assured that competition will in the main take care of prices in the distribution area. We shall see that the safeguards are sufficiently well drawn to give assurance to industry. It would be wrong to deprive ourselves of a power which might be used only occasionally but which, when used, would be helpful.

Mr. Crouch: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the speech of the Minister of State. I do not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that the Minister of State was talking utter nonsense. The Minister of State is not at difference with most of us in the House in seeking to ensure a fair deal for the consumer. However, he assumes that there is only one mechanism that will give a fair deal to consumers and will ensure that they are not exploited. I refer to the Price Commission, with its extra special powers. We are in debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham for reminding us that there is still at work in our economic system a powerful competitive element that is to the benefit of the consumer.
The Minister of State is a reasonable man and will agree that this short debate has not been expressed in uncertain terms but has been conducted eloquently and sensibly. The contributions, even at this late hour and after so many hours of debate, have been constructive. The major amendments in which I have taken an interest have been debated for as much as eight hours, and all our discussions have been constructive. They have not been destructive. They have not tried to


take anything out of the Bill. They have tried to weaken the overriding and overwhelming power of the Commission—but that is what Oppositions and Parliament are for.
Our amendments are not destructive; they are constructive. This amendment emphatically improves the Bill. It restricts the overwhelming power of the Commission in the area of distribution of goods and services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham rightly told the Minister that we should not remove the element of competition that is so important today and that is operating for the benefit of the consumer, and at times doing so rigorously and even harshly.
I remind the House that I know well an area of industry in which I used to work—the chemical and synthetic fibre industry. As the Minister will know, there has been a wold-wide problem in the synthetic fibre industry. A year ago I was talking to ICI about its great problems and the enormous losses incurred in the production and sale of synthetic fibres, mainly nylon. I asked ICI why it did not go to the Price Commission to seek increased prices to cover the losses, but I was told most emphatically that it could not do that, because it would lose too much business to competition from foreign producers. The company was not complaining; it was telling me about normal life in the economic world of today. The international market has a power and pressure of competition that can work for the benefit of the consumer.
We are in debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who moved the amendment in such a moderate tone as catch the ear, the eye, and the attention of the Minister. We also owe a debt to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham, who brought us back to earth with the reminder that competition is such a major factor today. I said earlier, during my remarks on another amendment, that I wanted to see the House applying some restrictions to the Price Commission. A bureaucratic abuse, which I do not like to see, is emerging in our society. There are too many arms of bureaucracy, and even arms of the corporate State. I do not use that expression emotively, but there are inhibiting elements of control outside the House that are making life difficult.
We must use our opportunities of debate in the House to tell the Government to take note of the amendments that would prevent such power being given away and that would restrict the power of the corporate State a little.
There are other elements at work that can safeguard the consumer, and we must not forget them. The Government have good intentions to control prices but we are all worried about their approach. They want to do it their way, but I am suggesting other ways.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) realise that under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 there is no control over the actions of the Price Commission? Under this Bill, if the Price Commission conducts an investigation into a distributor, it can impose no penalty—unless the investigation is a penalty—neither can the Secretary of State, except by making an order, which would be subject to parliamentary control. I hope that nobody will run away with the idea that we are creating Government control. We are democratising and giving greater democratic control in the application of the policy.

Mr. Crouch: That is a helpful point, and I concede it. My criticism is that the Government are creating more of a corporate State, but all Governments do that and my criticisms reach back over the years just as strongly.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Richard Page: The operation of Clause 5 and its effects have been more than fully demonstrated by my hon. Friends. Its effects will be disastrous unless we can remedy them to a degree through Amendment No. 34. The amendment provides that no investigation would take place into the margins of a distributor of goods under this clause because of the way in which margins now will exceed margins later. That comes back to the Counter-Inflation Act 1973. Refusal to accept the amendment—which has been described as a timid one—would screw even tighter the economic lid on distributors of goods and services.
Hon. Members are aware that distortion of market forces can be allowed for only a limited time. If the distortion is left too long, one creates undesirable and frequently disastrous side effects. If


it is left as it is, the clause will produce even more damage to business overseas, which has already severely shaken continuing investment because of the fall in returns on investment. Two or three years ago good returns could be expected on capital invested, but there has been a steady drop during the last 15 years. In the early 1960s the return was 13 per cent. plus, but in 1975 it was an average of 3 per cent. No Government can expect companies to expand and to provide employment on such a low financial return, because that is an absolute impossibility. The low returns of the last few years are an example not of how capitalism has failed the country but of how Socialism is preventing private enterprise from doing its proper job.
Goods distributors must act mostly in the market place. Competition is fierce and hard and may lead to the loss of orders. That may lead to reorganisation in a company or in heavy shaving of the profit margins. However, we are operating in a market place in which the profit margins of distributors of goods and services are not all that they should be. Companies must make their own firms the best and the most efficient organisations. The distortion would be reduced a little by Amendment No. 34.
I shall quote an example of which I know personally. An extremely efficient company and a fairly well known one operates mainly in the area of the South of England as a distributor of goods and services. It buys products from a wholesaler and some manufacturers, and so also do its competitors. It is, therefore, the efficient internal organisation of the company that must produce a higher profit on turnover. The Price Commission decided that the company should shave its profit margins because of its increased efficiency during the last few years. The company had little option. It increased its sales, which in turn caused severe hardship to its competitors in the neighbourhood. Those competitors reorganised their businesses, laid off staff and so caused unemployment.
The distortion which occurred simply through the intervention of the Commission did not end there. The company wanted to expand and to put up new premises. It therefore employed more people, but the profit that the company

had earned had had to be cut back. It did not have the resources to expand. In addition, its large sales had caused the edge of its once efficient and competitive staff to be blunted because they were practically giving the product away and they did not have to go out and look for orders. Amendment No. 34 would provide a little relief to the stifling effect of Clause 5 and help a little the distributors of goods and, in turn, the industries which supply them.
Bearing in mind our poor industrial performance in recent years, we need every bit of help we can get, especially when we take into account that industrial production in the first quarter of this year is only 3·3 per cent. higher than the comparable figure in 1970 and it has struggled just to equal the famous productivity figures of February 1974.
I make only a small apology for this detour into industry. In the past 23 hours hon. Members have detoured far further, but I believe in dealing with the things that matter. By increasing our industrial productivity, we shall move towards increasing our GNP and, logically from that, towards a reduction in inflation and unemployment.
I have just learned that unemployment in my constituency went up by 0·9 per cent. last month. Most of this figure comprises the 400 boys and girls who have just left school and are relying upon the distributive and retail network for jobs. The clause does not give them a chance, and I end with an appeal to hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to speak following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page) though, in the patois of the earlier part of the debate, I shall be following him in countries other than Great Britain. The Under-Secretary was rebuked earlier for speaking as if we had all been members of the Standing Committee. One of the advantages of a long debate is that it enables those of us who were not members of the Committee gradually to catch up with our Committee reading and to follow the issues that were originally discussed—though I have noticed a similarity between some of the speeches made today and some of those made in Committee.
There were references to Australia, mainly, it seems, because of the existence


of the Australian Prices Justification Tribunal. I go to Australia fairly frequently, though not to study its distribution, and it seems that in terms of its geographical patterns and historical development Australian distribution is a much more oligopolistic system than is ours, and it does not lend itself to comparison with the United Kingdom system.
Comparisons have been made—to the discredit and disadvantage of the Continent—between our distribution pattern and that on the Continent. While the Continent is obviously closer in terms of the general pattern of distribution, it is still a great deal further behind us in its pattern of distribution.
From my experience it seems that the closest comparison in terms of the pattern of distribution and historical evolution can be drawn with the United States. Hon. Members who have studied the working of the American system will be conscious of the remarkable consistency of distribution costs as a percentage of goods sold in America over the years. It has not fluctuated by more than 1 per cent. over the past quarter of a century. That seems to endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) about the effect of a really competitive system in giving the consumer a good deal.
In Committee, the Minister said:
Although I think that the circumstances of investigation might be rare, we should be unwise if we omitted that power from the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17th May 1977; c. 278.]
It was generally recognised that cases would be rare, and it is a reasonable general observation that one of the problems with control systems of any sort is how to get a respectable return to compensate for the considerable expense of setting up the system. The Minister sought to persuade us that there would be only rare occasions, but I have grave misgivings that, if the powers exist, the distribution industry will be subjected to them, either directly or indirectly. I shall not follow the interesting example that has been raised of the Australian motor parts case, because, as I have said, I am not sure that it is relevant. As a consumer of bananas for many, many years I have always been conscious of the monopoly situation in the banana trade,

but I have always assumed that if the Government wanted to do anything about it they could do it without a Bill such as this.

Mr. Neubert: This has been a restrained and responsive debate on an amendment that was persuasively moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). We all agree that it has been immeasurably assisted by the contribution of our right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who, as Chairman of the Retail Consortium, can speak with considerable authority on this issue. That authority was recognised by the Minister, who, no doubt, has taken my right hon. Friend's measure in countless meetings round negotiating tables.
I also welcome the intervention of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not so much for what he said as for the fact that he gave evidence that the Labour Benches had regained their voices after hours of silence.
In the long watches of the night we were stimulated and prompted to real debates particularly between Labour Members below the Gangway and my hon. Friends. No doubt some edict has gone out saying that they should not speak so often. Progress on the Bill was assisted rather than delayed by their contributions, which were helpful and gratifying.
We have already touched on the question of discrimination against the distribution industry, which, while being acknowledged as the most efficient, is nevertheless subject to the most stringent controls.
There is an irony here. The Minister recognises that the keenest competition is in the High Street, and that retail distribution companies are the housewives' best friends because of their efficient organisation. Yet the Government are keeping price restraint at a time when many costs are uncontrollable. The Minister is determined that this industry should remain more stringently controlled than the manufacturing industry, that the greatest controls must operate in this area, and that the power of investigation should be available. We know that it is unlikely that there will be many cases that are subject to the new powers.
4.0 p.m.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Page), who said that this was yet another turn of the screw. Distributors are already subject to the 10 per cent. cut in their profits margins that was introduced in May 1974. That must surely have taken account of any historically high margins of profit which they enjoyed as a result of previous circumstances. However, they are still to be subject to this strict control.
We think it reasonable to press the amendment to a vote, as we think those concerned should be entitled to some relief.
I heard Big Ben strike 4 o'clock. We have reached an historic stage in the consideration of this Bill, as we have now been dealing with it for 24 hours. Perhaps the reason for this long consideration lies in the fact that so many issues remained unresolved until the Committee stage. If some speeches have had a familiar flavour, it is because the issues are the same and have had to be revived and resolved by the House. I hope that this amendment, which we whole heartedly support, will be accepted.

Mr. Shersby: This has been one of the most interesting debates of the past 24 hours. It has contained a good deal of harmony between the Minister and the Opposition. I only express my keen disappointment that, despite the acknowledgement which the Minister gave to the efficiency of the distributors, he does not feel able to depart from his previous position and accept the amendment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) made some telling points. He said that the margins were less now than they were in 1973. He referred to the importance of competition in the High Street as being the factor that restrains prices—a point with which the Minister was in full agreement. He also referred to the importance of the distributors in offering employment to the many youngsters who are out of work today.
The purpose of my amendment was to relieve the distributors of yet another burden which would distract them from the important tasks that they must carry

out. I am sorry that the Minister has not felt able to accept the amendment. I shall join members of the Opposition in pressing this amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 253.

[For Division List No. 175, see c. 1657]

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

INVESTIGATIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 75, in page 9, line 4, at end insert:
'(d) to include in their report an indication as to which of the matters listed in section 2(2) of this Act they have in particular had regard in preparing that report'—[Mr. Parkinson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 237, Noes 252.

[For Division List No. 176, see c. 1661]

Question accordingly negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Neubert: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 9, line 4, at end insert:
'(1A) Where the relevant person notifies the Commission in writing that any statements of fact contained in the report are erroneous in a material particular or that relevant and material matters of fact have been omitted therefrom and the Commission in including any such statement or excluding such matter relied on information received from any person other than the relevant person or any servant of the Commission the Commission shall (unless a public inquiry preceded the report and the informant gave evidence thereat) within seven days of receipt of the notification inform the relevant person to that effect in writing, identifying their informant and setting out the tenor of the information given by him, and shall send a copy of the relevant person's notification and of the information sent to him in reply to the Secretary of State'.
As we have now reached the half-way stage in terms of the amendments tabled and selected on this Report stage of the Bill, perhaps it would not be amiss if I explained why it is that this Report stage is so remarkably lengthy. It is because, although the Government are in a minority in the House and are, as a consequence, a minority Government, they


had equality of membership in the Committee, but this was not sufficient for them to carry their point of view on all necessary occasions. In fact, on no fewer than sixteen occasions was the vote tied, and the issue with which this amendment deals is one of them.
This amendment deals with the protection against false evidence of a company subjected to investigation.
It is unfortunately a fact of business life with which we have to reckon that the Price Commission may be informed by a third person, who may have an interest in the matter, of certain facts which lead it to initiate an investigation. Inevitably this must be so, because the Price Commission would depend upon private sources of advice as well as on its own observation and facts which are publicly known.
We feel that the company investigated should have the safeguard that if the report which eventually emerges from the Price Commission to go to the Secretary of State is shown in the company's view to contain erroneous information—I hesitate to use the word "facts" because even facts are very often subjective and the word should be used in quotation marks—or to be based on false premises, and if that false information should have been supplied by a third person, the company should have the opportunity to make that known to the Commission. The Commission should then have to identify the informant and identify precisely which information has come from that source, and this should then be part of the submission which goes to the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State at that stage has a power to delete parts of the report before it is made public, if he considers it proper in commercial terms and in terms of confidentiality to do so. But, as was brought out in Committee, he does not have the opportunity to vary or amend the report in any way. Therefore, we on the Conservative side of the House think that it is a proper safeguard for which to ask.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I intervene, although I have not yet taken part in this great debate—[Interruption.] If Labour Members wish me to take part in a more active sense in future amendments, I shall be delighted to satisfy their

wish. I consider it to be most flattering that I should be in such great demand. I intervene at this stage because, frankly, I cannot believe my ears when I hear that this amendment will be opposed and I do not believe the evidence of my eyes when I read what the Minister said in relation to this proposed amendment in the Standing Committee.
The Government are intending to perpetrate an injustice which is so extreme that it must be apparent not only to Labour Members below the Gangway—I see very few of the accustomed faces present at the moment—but also to hon. Members above the Gangway. It is an injustice which must strike deeply into the heart not only of Socialists but of extreme Right-wing Conservatives and anybody in between, for it is a fundamental protection of our British law that a man has the right to know not only who is his accuser, but of what he is accused. This fundamental protection is being pushed aside in this legislation by the most spurious of reasoning that one has yet heard.
For example, the Minister of State said:
On the question of which facts are right and which are wrong, I am not sure that a firm under investigation can be expected to be a reliable judge of what facts and reports are wrong, or what has been wrongly left out. It would probably object to anything which it found to be embarrasing."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17th May 1977; col. 314.]
I ask Labour Members to bear with me and to consider the same judgment, the same statement, applied to a person accused of a criminal offence. Is it to be said that he should not know what accusation is brought against him, either in general or specifically, so that he may answer it? Is it to be said that he must not know who is bringing the accusation, so that he is unable to test that witness against him to see whether that witness be truthful or untruthful, or whether the source of his information is accurate or inaccurate?
If that judgment would not be expected to apply to somebody charged with a criminal offence, why should it apply to somebody whose whole future in business may be affected as a result of tittle-tattle from a source that he may not know and the subject of which he may not know?
If Labour Members do not think that there is a parity of situation between a person accused of a criminal offence, or even with an allegation made against him in a civil law context, and a company or a firm having a right to know what accusations are made and who is making them, I beg them to consider this. Many of them have made themselves signatories to something called an Early-Day Motion to advance a freedom of information Bill. This means that hon. Members—it is not confined to hon. Members on the Government side but applies on both sides of the House—are seriously concerned about a development in our complicated society as a result of which all sorts of misinformation may too easily be held against a person. That person does not know what it is or what is the source, and there is nothing that such a person can do about it.
This applies to information compiled by computer. It applies to information about hire-purchase defaults and to other information about the instability of a person's finances. It applies also to information about our children at school, to how they misbehave, and to many other matters. Regardless of political belief, we are entitled to know who makes an allegation against us and what that allegation is, so that we can correct it if it is erroneous.
Is it really considered for a moment that our concern in this respect is not as justified where a company may be the subject of false information supplied by a computer, by somebody who has a grudge, or by somebody who, although well meaning, has got his facts wrong? All of us as Members of Parliament know what it is like to have a complaint made to us by a constituent, only to find, when it is investigated, that it has no basis, not because the constituent is dishonest but because he has got the wrong end of the stick and does not understand all the facts. We are very often able to correct the information and make sure that justice and fairness result.
In all these situations we, as Members of Parliament, are the guardians of people's fundamental rights. Whether it is criminal law, civil law or just the way in which we govern ourselves in our society, it is fundamental that we should know what anyone says about us that is evil,

or about our companies, our families or our friends, and who is the person saying these things, so that he can be tested as to the accuracy and the honesty of it all.
I cannot, quite frankly, understand how there can possibly be any opposition to an amendment which merely seeks to give a company the fundamental rights to know what specifically is said against it, the basis of that accusation and, principally, from who that accusation comes, so that it can be tested. Then in due course, the Minister, the Price Commission, can weigh up the pros and cons and say whom they believe and whether the facts are true or false. A fair judgment can then be made and nobody can complain against it. But to deny the accused the right to know what is the accusation or who is the accuser is a fundamental betrayal of one of the most important rights that we are sent to this place to try to preserve.
How can it be that Labour Members, who are so concerned with fundamental rights of this sort, can be so blinded that they do not see what is confronting them? I can only conclude that it is due to the lateness of the hour, to the complicated nature of the legislation, or to the fact that most of us have had very little sleep or no sleep at all, so that our faculties are not concentrated and we are just wandering willy-nilly in and out of the Lobbies as the Whips dictate, without considering the important matters set out in this legislation.

Mr. Le Merchant: Shame!

Mr. Lawrence: I hear one of my hon. Friends, who tells me which Lobby to go into, cry "Shame". It is a shame, but it is one of the realities of parliamentary life that we cannot, at every moment of time when a matter is being debated, sit down and consider all the ramifications.
But I ask hon. Members who are present to consider the ramifications of refusing this amendment, and to consider whether they can find it in their consciences to go into the Lobby against it. I ask them to consider whether it would not be a far better contribution to justice and fairness if they were to tell one or two of their hon. Friends, before they go into the Lobby to vote against it, exactly what is at stake in this amendment, and seek to send them to this


side. Then perhaps the independent conscience of hon. Members can be brought to prevail against those forces which have hitherto been so powerful as to resist an amendment as moderate; as non-party-political, as sensible and as just as this.

Mr. Maclennan: I think that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is familiar with the exchange which took place in Committee on this amendment, which was one of a number of amendments designed to give companies subject to investigation greater information about the nature of the economic evidence which was being brought forward in a consideration of their case by third parties. He will not be surprised to learn that I still see difficulties in the way of advising the House to accept this amendment. That stems principally from the problem that would face firms who have, in good conscience and in the public interest, supplied to the Price Commission information of a factual kind, much of which could, in the nature of things, be confidential and which, if revealed, to the firm under examination could positively be of disservice to that firm.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In Committee when the hon. Gentleman first raised this matter we considered it to be a most unwelcome development. I would press the Minister now to state openly why he thinks that companies will supply that information. Why should the Commission ask for it in that way? Is the Minister not starting something akin to a witch-hunt among companies by using this technique?

Mr. Maclennan: Among the considerations—I cite this only by way of illustration—which might be germane to an investigation is the extent of the market share of a company. That is a highly sophisticated question, and it is plain that it ought not to be decided upon by the Price Commission solely relying upon the view of the company under investigation.
Other companies might wish to give their view about their position in the market. It would not necessarily be desirable to have that kind of information transferred from one company to another through the medium of a public agency of this kind. I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will see nothing sinister in this. It is a protection of commercial confidentiality.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The point of our amendment would not arise in the kind of case that the Minister has just described. He is talking about a company giving independent information about itself and telling the Price Commission what its share of the market was. It would not be providing information about another company in which there could be errors of fact.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady is a little naive if she thinks that the information about one company's share of the market does not have a bearing on the share of the market of another company. These two things sometimes tie up. There is nothing sinister in this at all. The issue here—perhaps it is revealed more in the speech made by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) than in that of the hon. Member for Romford—is a misconception of the nature of these investigations. They are not in any sense judicial or criminal proceedings, as he seemed to imply. They are investigations, and they will be based upon factual evidence provided not only by the company but by others who may have information to add.
The procedure will be highly informal and will enable companies to bring forward to explain their position such matters and facts as they consider to be relevant. In that very informality, and in the capacity of the Price Commission to tell a company its finding or its preliminary view and ask for its explanation, the company's interests are fully protected.
It would be wrong for the Price Commission to be deprived of information from third parties and to focus their information solely upon the information provided by the company itself. That would inevitably lead to less satisfactory results.

Mr. Lawrence: Is the hon. Gentleman denying that whether or not they are criminal or civil legal proceedings—I was not seeking to suggest that it was either but merely that there was parity—it is a question of fundamental justice that the company which is accused should know


what the accusation is and who has made it? Would the Minister deny that? The Minister says that there is nothing sinister in his point, and I am not anxious to see anything sinister in it, but what protection is there for the suspect company against false information, whether it is dishonest or just inaccurate?

Mr. Maclennan: What I am trying to suggest to the hon. Member is that there would be some informality in an investigation, which would enable the Price Commission to be in contact continually with the company under investigation to check allegations and to make available for comment any facts which may be available.
However, in the last analysis, the Commission will produce this report, and if from the report it appears to the company that there is some mistake in it the provenance of which is not known, it would be against the public interest to force the third party which provided the information to disclose it.
The ultimate safeguard is that the company has the opportunity after the report has been made to make representations to the Secretary of State, who will then have to decide whether to act upon the recommendation of the Price Commission.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Will there not devolve upon the Price Commission some form of duty if it becomes aware of the fact that it has been the recipient of frivolous or misleading information and has handled and processed such?

Mr. Maclennan: I think that one must rely here, as one would in a court of law but even perhaps more in a commercial matter of this kind, upon the sense and judgment of the members of the Commission. That is why my right hon. Friend has attached such importance to finding people of the right calibre for this important work. Highly paid public servants will be doing this work because it involves the exercise of judgment. It does not involve mere tests against the code, as in the previous arrangements. I hope that that reassures hon. Members opposite, although I appreciate, from the way this debate has gone and the way it went in Committee, that they are seek-

ing to erect a more legalistic approach to it.
I believe that that would not be in the best interests of industry under investigation. I believe that it would lead to protraction and added expense and would get us far away from the kind of intimate relationship which I hope will develop between industry and the Price Commission.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: This is another example of what should be a straightforward, reasonable and modest amendment being rejected by the Minister, who complacently assumes that it will be all right if he merely says, "I hope that that will satisfy the House." Clearly it will not. There is much uneasiness about the powers used in the preparation of these reports. The amendment is a modest defence to what have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) as factual errors or wilfully irresponsible errors, produced by the accumulation of material about companies as a result of price increases.
The Minister should give the House its due. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) couched his speech in a low key, very sagaciously, and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was much more dramatic, introducing more of a legal note, the truth of the situation may lie somewhere between those two pitches. The Minister should respond to the anxieties and at long last reassure us in respect of our continual realisation that he is very naive on many industrial and commercial matters in respect of the ways in which information in the retail and commercial sectors is produced and exchanged.
If the Government accepted this modest amendment to deal with errors in the compilation of a report, they would do what they refused to do in Committee. There will frequently be errors in these reports. The fact that such bodies have too much to do shows that there is too much information to be compiled now. This little element of defence against errors of fact—even if "fact" may be an objective matter—is reasonable and should be accepted. If the Government do not accede to this request, I hope that we shall press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 255.

[For Division List No. 177, see c. 1665]

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 9, line 22, at end insert—
'(3A) The Commission shall, if so required by a notice given as mentioned in the preceding subsection, give to the relevant person or to a person appointed by him an opportunity of making representations in person to a member of the Commission about the increase, price or margin in question before the investigation is completed.'
This is a concession to the Opposition. It ensures that a firm under investigation has an opportunity of putting its case before a member of the Commission.

Mr. Parkinson: The Opposition are thankful for small mercies. We accept with gratitude the amendment proposed by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 10, line 7, leave out 'unrestricted' and insert:
'not restricted by virtue of the said section 4(2)(b)'.

Clause 7

RESTRICTIONS, UNDERTAKINGS AND ORDERS IN CONSEQUENCE OF REPORTS ON INVESTIGATIONS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 13 line 20, after 'but', insert:
'(a) the duty imposed on the Commission by section 2(1) of the 1973 Act to have regard to the code in performing their functions under that Act shall not apply to functions attributable to the preceding provisions of this subsection; and
(b)'.
This is a simple and uncontroversial amendment. In enforcing orders the Commission would not be required to have regard to the provisions of the Price Code. That is because the Counter-Inflation Act enforcement provisions are carried into the new system. However, it is inappropriate to have references of this kind to the Price Code when the enforcement relates to orders following investigations.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 13, line 24, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
'(8) If during a period when section 4(2)(b) of this Act applies to the whole or part of an increase of a price or a period when, apart from section 9 of this Act, an increase of a price is restricted by virtue of subsection (1) or precluded by virtue of subsection (5)(a)(ii) of this section, notice of an increase in the price is given in pursuance of an order under section 5 of the 1973 Act, the notice shall be deemed not to be given when it is actually given and shall be deemed to be given—

(a) on the first day on which no such period is current in relation to the price; or
(b) on an earlier day specified by the Secretary of State if, on the application of the Commission or the relevant person and after consulting whichever of them is not the applicant, he specifies such a day in respect of the notice'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it would be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 51.

Mr. Maclennan: This is a slightly more complicated amendment. Therefore I feel that I should explain it to the House.
The problem here arises where a firm has been investigated and the Price Commission has recommended some action and the Secretary of State has made an order. At the end of the currency of the order a firm would almost inevitably want to make a price increase and would therefore need to give 28 days' notice, and the Commission may want to investigate the justification of that further increase. It was with that in mind that the original Clause 7(8) was included in the Bill.
There were a number of defects in the original drafting of the Bill. It is felt that the new subsection meets the difficulty. Effectively, it prevents firms, during the currency of the restriction, from submitting one or more notifications of proposed price increases and enables the Price Commission to have, as it were, a clear period during the restriction. I believe that a company's interests are safeguarded by the inclusion in the subsection of a waiver power granted to the Secretary of State which prescribes the circumstances in which it would be exercised.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his explanation of the amendment. I accept that his intention has been to improve the Bill. In the interests of keeping matters moving and not taking up too much time, I


shall confine myself to saying that we do not find this amendment entirely satisfactory. It is not fair to companies, nor do they see it as such. We shall not support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 224.

[For Division List No. 178, see c. 1669]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Parkinson: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
'(9) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding provisions of this Act. if a person has given an undertaking under this section and it has been accepted or if an order made under subsection (5) of this section applies to a person and that person represents to the Commission that the circumstances have changed since the date of the undertaking or order so that a restriction of a price or margin is no longer appropriate the Commission shall forthwith investigate the representation and if the Commission think that it is justified the Commission shall, not later than 28 days after receipt of the representation, make recommendations to the Secretary of State in accordance with their findings; and if within 14 days after receiving such recommendations the Secretary of State does not release the undertaking or vary or revoke the order accordingly he shall lay before each house of Parliament a memorial giving his reasons therefor'.
Under the Bill as it now stands, the Secretary of State has the discretion to vary an order made by himself and enforced by the Price Commission. It seems to us that where an order has been made or an undertaking given, and there is a dramatic change of circumstances—for instance, the example of a commodity broker was mentioned in Committee; a person dealing in coffee who suddenly finds that the whole basis of his pricing is totally transformed by circumstances beyond his control—provision should be made in the Bill for the circumstances to be reassessed, for the order to be rescinded or for the order to be changed.
In the amendment we suggest a procedure which we feel is better than the power at present given to the Secretary of State in subsection (6). The procedure is very simple. It is that the person concerned or the company should have the right to make representations to the Price

Commission. After all, the Price Commission will be the body which has the information and which conducted the investigation—and on the basis of its recommendation the Secretary of State will have made his original decision.
It seems to us that it would be far better if the person concerned had the right to approach the Price Commission to make representations about the changed circumstances and for the Price Commission to have the power to re-examine the submission, and that if it came to the conclusion that there were suitable grounds for recommending a variation of an order, the Price Commission should make that recommendation to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State would then have 14 days in which either to accept the recommendation of the Price Commission or to lay before Parliament something that the amendment describes as a memorial, explaining to Parliament why he has decided not to accept the recommendations of the Price Commission.
The features of the procedure that the amendment would bring into the Bill would be, first, that the Secretary of State would not be able to act on his own discretion without explanation to Parliament unless he was acting on the advice of the Price Commission and on its recommendation. Secondly, we believe that our procedure, as outlined in the amendment, writes into the Bill an escape clause and a sensible procedure should the relevant person's circumstances alter in a serious or important way. Thirdly, we believe that it brings into this decision the Price Commission, which is, after all, the body which has done the work, which has investigated the company, which has come to the conclusion that there should be a price freeze originally, and which has made the recommendation to the Secretary of State.
In replying to the amendment that we proposed in Committee—on which the vote was tied—the Minister said that he had a great deal of sympathy with what we were trying to achieve and that he was in no way hostile to the spirit of the amendment. He made an offer which, by the standards of the behaviour of the Ministers on this Bill, was exceptionally generous. He said "I shall not accept the amendment, but what I promise is that before the Minister takes a decision, the


Price Commission will be consulted". He also explained that in his view one of the reasons why the Price Commission should not be brought into this procedure was that 28 days would not be a long enough period for the Price Commission to act, and therefore it was far better that the person should have direct access to the Secretary of State, who should take the advice of the Price Commission.
However, I fail to see how the Price Commission will put itself into a position that will enable it to advise the Secretary of State within 28 days when it will not be in such a position within 28 days if approached directly itself. Presumably the Price Commission will have to act swiftly if the Secretary of State approaches it, yet the Minister argued, as one of the reasons why he could not accept our amendment, that the Price Commission was not capable of acting at the speed at which it would need to act.
We do not expect that there would be a very large number of these applications in the course of a year, and we know that if they were to be made, they would be made by companies that would have very serious problems indeed and would need a speedy decision.
5.30 p.m.
The Price Commission must gear itself either to giving the Secretary of State the advice which the Minister of State said that his right hon. Friend would seek or alternatively that it is not capable of giving that advice. The Minister cannot argue against the procedure which the amendment outlines. We had this discussion upstairs. There was very little difference between us. We failed to resolve it, and that is why we are discussing it again today.
The Minister has had a little longer to consider the matter. I hope that he will come to the conclusion that the procedure we suggest is more consistent with the way in which the Commission will work than direct access to the Secretary of State and the discretion of the Secretary of State. It fixes the Price Commission firmly in the procedure and gives the Commission an important rôle in arriving at a decision which we think the Price Commission should have a part in taking.
At this time of night I find the words that I want to say do not come easily. But since the Minister's mind is probably in roughly the same state as mine I am sure that he understands the point that I am trying to make. I therefore hope that having had a chance to reconsider his attitude he will come to the conclusion that the procedure outlined in the amendment is sensible and deserves to be incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: It is not out of obstinacy but out of consideration for the parties affected that it would be better, and in the interest of the firms subject to an order, that they should make their applications to the Secretary of State. I take that view for a number of reasons. First, it will be the Secretary of State who takes the decision on the recommendation or advice of the Price Commission. It may be that the grounds are less clear than that recommended by the Commission but, at any rate, it will have been his responsibility to make the order.
The second reason is that one immediately makes the Secretary of State accountable to Parliament. The firm need only contact its Member of Parliament in order for a Question to be put down and immediately the Secretary of State can be pressed and questioned in a way that cannot take place if the application is made to the Price Commission. Therefore, I think we are doing a favour to the firm by giving it direct access.
Third, we do not intend to leave the Price Commission out of account. I gave an undertaking to the Committee which I reaffirm, that in all cases the Secretary of State will consult the Price Commission. Our procedure provides a more direct and rapid line of communication to the person whom the order covers. It is a flexible procedure—it could be quicker than 28 days if the Secretary of State found that there was an overwhelming case and wanted to act quickly—and it does not tie the firm down to rigid time limits.
The difference between us is not about the objective of the amendment but rather its efficacy. I believe that what I have outlined is more beneficial for the firms concerned, and it is for that reason that I have not changed my mind.

Mr. Tebbit: Given that I have entered the debate again having been out of the Chamber for a little while, it is almost as puzzling as having been here all the time. I looked at the amendment carefully because I wanted to support my hon. Friend if I possibly could. There are one or two things that worry me about the amendment. That may be because I have not been involved in the debates all the way through and therefore have been denied the incalculable privilege of having heard the Under-Secretary putting his arguments in Committee. That is the sort of privilege that all of us regret having missed.
It is the wording of the amendment that worries me. I am also worried by some of the reasons given in the Minister's reply. I am still not certain whether in all cases a person and a company are interchangeable. I hope that my hon. Friend can tell me a little more about that.
The second line of the amendment states:
Given an undertaking under this section and it has been accepted".
One must at this stage ask "accepted by whom?". Is it accepted by the Secretary of State or by the Commission. I hope that my hon. Friend does not think that I am nitpicking because when I read the amendment I thought that here and there it might be a trifle weak. That is when I came back to reality. For example, the beginning of Clause 7(1) states:
On the effective date of a report in pursuance of subsection (1) of the preceding section in respect of an increase or a price, section 4(2)(b) of this Act shall cease to apply to the increase or, as the case may be, section 5(3) of this Act shall cease to apply to the price; and on and after that date any provisions recommending a restriction of the increase or price which are included in the report in pursuance of subsection (4)(b)(i)
—so far we have had four references back—
of the preceding section shall have effect, until the date determined in pursuance of the following subsection and subject to section 9 of this Act—
One begins to think that my hon. Friend's purity and clarity would stand out like a sore thumb in the Bill. It is very puzzling to fit it all together. The amendment goes on:
and that person represents to the Commission that the circumstances have changed since the date of the undertaking or order".

Which undertaking, or which order? I shall not go into the remainder of this because it goes back to subsection (5) of this section. You may think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have read out rather a lot of this Bill, but that was only part of subsection (1) of Clause 7. If we turn to subsection (5) we find—goodness me, it covers half a page with the same sort of gobbledegook. I am not certain whether it relates to subsection (5) of this section. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford-shire, South (Mr. Parkinson) may be able to help me. Is it subsection (5)(a)(i) or subsection (5)(a)(ii) that refers us back to subsection (4)(b)(ii) of the preceding section? Subsection (5)(a)(ii) states
that a price should not be increased during a particular period, providing that the price shall not be increased during that period or a shorter period by virtue of section 9 of this Act".
I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) is as puzzled as I am. I shall help him if I can.

Mr. Tim Smith: I shall hope to help my hon. Friend, because the only reference in the amendment to subsection (5) is that part which refers to an order made under that section. It is quite clear under subsection (5)(a) that it refers to the making of an order. I do not think that my hon. Friend is in any difficulty.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is obviously far cleverer than I am, because I am in considerable difficulty and I really believe that if anyone who listens to all the gobbledegook contained in the Bill—[Interruption]. Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Mr. John Fraser: I was wondering whether all those controls in the cockpit confused the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tebbit: No. They were designed by logical people to achieve a logical purpose. There was no problem there at all. But when one gets to legislation of this sort one knows that sooner or later in the courts we shall have lawyers coming in and going through this great game. I can see my hon. Friend's eyes lighting up at the mere mention of lawyers. But I put it to the House that the Industrial Relations Act was pretty straightforward compared with this. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South will tell me how


this part of the amendment fits into subsection (5). It goes on:
that person represents to the Commission that the circumstances have changed since the date of the undertaking or order so that a restriction of a price or margin is no longer appropriate".
On what criteria? Where are the criteria that he should use. If we go back to Clause 2 and look at some of the criteria we see that it says,
"It shall be the duty of the Commission"—I assume that the same would apply to a person—
to have regard to all matters which appear to the Commission in the particular circumstances to be relevant.

Mr. John Fraser: The Secretary of State is equally bound by the criteria when making an order, considering a reference, or varying or revoking an order.

Mr. Tebbit: I am not getting at the Minister. This is my hon. Friend's amendment, and he says that the person must represent to the Commission how circumstances have changed since the date of the undertaking and why the restrictions on prices or margins is no longer appropriate. The person is to take account of the criteria which would have been taken into account by the Commission, but he does not know what these criteria are. My hon. Friend may think that I am being a little thicker than usual, but it is difficult at this stage in our proceedings to get it straight.
In Clause 2(1)(a) the Commission is directed
to have regard to all matters which appear to the Commission in the particular circumstances to be relevant".
First of all, how can any person who has to do that know what was in the mind of the Commission. The words
in the particular circumstances to be relevant
constitute a pretty broad scope, and a person would be in some difficulty here. How would he know what the Commission would have thought was relevant?

Mr. Tim Smith: I think that it is worth pointing out that although the amendment came from the Opposition side of the House the Minister of State said in Standing Committee that,

In practice, the Price Commission will try to inform the firm to be investigated of its prima facie reasons for coming to the conclusion that there ought to be an investigation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12th May 1977.]

Mr. Tebbit: Obviously my hon. Friend is trying to be very helpful, but what the Minister says in Committee has no standing in the courts. It is no good turning up in court and demanding that the Commission give information simply because the Minister said that it should do so. We can expect some difficulties there. I think that my hon. Friend might want to consider this a little more carefully. I am not criticising the principle of the amendment—the drafting can always be tidied up in the Lords.

Mr. Cyril Smith: I should vote against it if I were you.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) thinks that I should vote against it. That is what this place is all about—persuading each other on issues. It may be disappointing for my hon. Friend if he cannot persuade me. I would like him to do so, because I am persuaded by the argument of what he wishes to achieve by the amendment. It is all the untidiness that rather worries me.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Burden: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) look with kindness on the advice of the Liberal Party?

Mr. Tebbit: Of course I look on it with kindness. I look with kindness on all dumb creatures—including the Liberal Party.
The amendment says that
if within 14 days after receiving such recommendations the Secretary of State does not release the undertaking or vary or revoke the order accordingly he shall lay before each house of Parliament a memorial giving (us reasons therefor".
It does not seem that my hon. Friend has emphasised the time limit on the period in which the Secretary of State has to lay the memorial. The Secretary of State has 14 days to realise the undertaking or to vary or revoke the order. He could after that time sit there fat, dumb and happy, as Secretaries of State tend to do, and not lay the memorial for a very long time. Perhaps my hon. Friend is willing to suggest that if the House accepted this subsection we could


persuade the Lords to carry out further amendments to it. No doubt they would enjoy doing so at the appropriate time of the day or night—they are rather good at doing that.
Although I have doubts about my Friend's proposal, the Minister's words worried me even more. He said that the Secretary of State would give access to the person directly—I assume that means in writing, otherwise it would be an untidy affair. But how does the person concerned know whether the Secretary of State is being really fair? The Minister's answer to this was that the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, but how many of us seriously buy that one? If we did we would be mugs. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection answers Oral Questions in the House once every three, four or five weeks. If one is lucky one might get a Question in the first 15 that are answered, and they are answered only if the Minister is pretty slick-moving.
An hon. Member may have received many letters from his constituents complaining about a matter being outrageous and urging him to raise it with the Secretary of State. That is all very well, but there are three hazards involved. The first hazard is that the Question will not get to the top of those selected for oral answer, and even if it does it could be several weeks before it gets there—a far longer period than the 28 days suggested by the Minister as being an excessively long period for a person or firm to be in doubt.
The second hazard is that one's Question might be on the margin. It might be No. 16. But suddenly, when the Minister arrives at Question No. 14, his answers become longer and longer, until they are reminiscent of the speeches that we have heard here in the past 24 hours. One gets the impression that he is just playing for time—of course, I know that nobody in this House ever filibusters, but there are moments when Ministers are answering Questions and one gets the impression that there is a sticky one coming up that they do not wish to answer. It just passes through our minds that their answers on earlier Questions may be rather more detailed than usual. This is a natural technique of the Executive when it does not wish to answer a Question.
The third hazard occurs when one actually gets a Question answered. The Minister's answer would probably be to the effect that he had taken all the criteria into account and decided that his action was proper.
The hon. Member concerned then leaps to his feet and comes up with the devastating supplementary question which he has rehearsed for weeks on end. The Minister then puts on a smooth manner and says "It is not in the interests of the company or the person concerned to reveal these pieces of commercial information, which would not be in the best interests of the person concerned. I am surprised at the hon. Member pressing me to make that information available in the House. "That is the end of the message. The most the hon. Member can do is to leap to his feet and say that, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, he will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
What chance is there for the matter to be raised on the Adjournment? The hon. Member has many other matters that he wishes to raise in Adjournment debates involving constituents and their rates, pensions and other problems. Since there are five debates a week, of only half an hour's duration, there is not a great deal of opportunity to raise such matters. However, when the hon. Member eventually gets the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment, he will have a quarter of an hour at 10 o'clock at night to make his case—that is, if the Government's business has not collapsed earlier or if the business of the previous day has not been carried over, as has happened on this Bill.
What about the poor devil who thought he had an Adjournment debate on Wednesday but who——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not dealing with Wednesday's Adjournment debate. Perhaps the hon. Member will return to Amendment No. 43.

Mr. Tebbit: It does not take very much effort to return to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said in his argument against the amendment that there are plenty of ways in which matters can be raised in the House. I am describing the ways in which matters can be raised in the House—or, more particularly, the ways in which they cannot be raised in the House.
As I was saying, some unfortunate hon. Member will miss tonight's Adjournment debate. He may well have to get back into the queue. It is a matter of chance whether that subject will be selected for an Adjournment debate. Therefore, it will be a long time before it comes up again.
If the hon. Member in question has the good fortune to obtain such a debate and to make a fifteen-minute speech, all he will get from the Minister is a fifteen-minute version of the fifteen-second reply that he would have been given a month before. At the end of the whole business, Mr. Speaker gets up and says that the House is adjourned, everybody goes home, and that is the finish. That was the great big deal of a debate that was held out by the Minister, who said——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that might be an appropriate moment to say that we have had quite a good debate on Amendment No. 43. Perhaps the hon. Member will return to it.

Mr. Tebbit: I had not noticed that I had got away from the amendment. If the Chair would like me to return to some other part of the Minister's comments about the amendment, no doubt that will be in order.
We are told that the Secretary of State will consult the Commission in these matters. However, there is no guarantee, promise, suggestion or, indeed, half promise, that the right hon. Gentleman will tell anybody the results of those consultations. Unless this amendment is accepted, there is no way in which the person concerned would know what the Commission's view was as given to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has said that he can act quickly and, indeed, more quickly than provided by the 28-day limit. That implies that the Secretary of State, as the Bill now is constituted, can sit on the matter for 14 or 21 days and ask the Commission for an answer. The only snag is that nobody will know what the answer is.
I have some doubts about the wording of my hon. Friend's amendment, and no doubt the Bill will leave this place in an imperfect state. However, until the Lord President becomes a member of a majority Government we shall have the priceless advantage of the revising Cham-

ber at the other end of the corridor. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer my queries. On balance, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and leave the other place to tighten up the provisions.

Mr. Parkinson: I find myself in a difficult position. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) takes this matter seriously, and he made some important points. Unfortunately, I shall have to do to my hon. Friend what the Minister has been doing to him in the last two days—in other words, I shall have to disappoint him.
I find myself in a quandary. We did not intend to press the amendment to a Division; we wished to withdraw it. Now I must face the choice of defending an amendment that I am about to withdraw, which might involve us in a wide-ranging discussion that runs through the Bill from Clause 2 onwards, or I can discuss the matter with my hon. Friend privately. However, he and I have more important things to do than to discuss an amendment that I do not propose to press. At any rate, my hon. Friend has had a longer reply from me than he has received from the Minister in the whole of the last 26 hours. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has had some sort of answer.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9

SAFEGUARDS FOR BASIC PROFITS

Mrs. Sally Oppcnheim: I beg to move Amendment No. 44, in page 14, line 6, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 21 and insert:
'(2) The regulations in this section have effect—

(a) for the purposes of section 4(5) of this Act and that paragraph as applied by section 5(4) of this Act; and
(b) for the purposes of defining levels of profit which persons are not to be prevented from earning by virtue of any provision of section 7 of this Act.

(3) The regulations for the purposes of the preceding subsection relate to the following levels of profit—

(a) in the case of an enterprise either an amount of net profit equivalent to 90 per cent. of the net profit margin being corned at the base date or an amount of net profit


equivalent to either 10 per cent. on capital or an amount of net profit equivalent to 2 per cent. on turnover, whichever is the greater; or
(b) in the case of a product, either 80 per cent. of the net profit margin being earned at the base date or an amount of net profit equivalent to 2½ per cent. on costs, whichever is the greater'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may also take Amendment No. 55, in Clause 22, page 25, line 42, after 'Act', insert:
'"enterprise", "net profit", "net profit margin', "base date", "product", "costs" "capital" and "turnover" have the meaning assigned to them by the 1976 Price Code Order (S.I., 1976, No. 1170)'.

Mrs. Oppenheim: We attach the greatest importance to this amendment. The Secretary of State's reaction to it will colour our final approach to the Bill.
I wish I had the confidence that on this amendment I had the flexibility that was deployed by my hon. Friends on earlier matters, but, perforce, this will have to be a long debate. It is a complex matter, and I must deal with it thoroughly. It is a matter that is crucial throughout British industry.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that new safeguards in Clause 9 are not lower than those that are in existence in the present Price Code. I want to make the situation absolutely clear. We did not table this amendment because we believed that the levels were adequate—but the levels are higher than those proposed in the consultative document published by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
I should like to pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. We discussed this matter at length in Committee and it engendered a good deal of anger, but eventually the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to the Committee that he would produce this document before Report. Under considerable pressure, he proceeded to do that, and I am grateful to him for speeding up the various procedures at that time, because it has made this debate possible on a matter that we regard as important.
We want to preserve these albeit inadequate levels in the present Price Code because they are levels with which business and industry are familiar, and on

which their forward plans have been based for some years ahead. They at least replace the uncertainties of the unknown quantities of the lower level of the proposed new safeguards. Indeed, it was the uncertainty associated with the new safeguards that has been causing much of the problem. I believe that that led the Secretary of State to ask at one point whether the problem was economic or psychological. It is bound to be a mixture of both, because we are dealing with an unknown quantity and the reason why it will be such an unknown quantity for business and industry is that there will be non-arithmetical criteria for the new safeguards, so it will not be possible to change the criteria into quantitative figures and to know precisely how this will affect certain companies until precedents have been created, and by that time it will be too late.
6.0 p.m.
It will be impossible for many companies to tell in advance whether they will come within the safeguard provisions in the Bill. As a result of that, forward planning will be made extremely difficult for many and impossible for some. Furthermore, if the Price Commission gets its calculations wrong or exercises discretion in an unfair manner there will be no redress at all, even when a company has been found to be innocent after an investigation. That will happen because of the absence of the roll-back amendment that we moved in Committee and that was not accepted. That situation is created under the safeguard provisions.
The Secretary of State has said that he is unable to define what is a reasonable profit because of the variables involved. If he cannot define it, how can the Price Commission do so? How will companies know where they stand? I am sure that I do not know. We shall be interested to hear from the Secretary of State on that point. The existing safeguards now comprise a number of relaxations.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has made an important point. In the fashion world, for example, a company may produce a number of articles and fix a price, only to find that one of those articles does not sell at all, and that must be compensated for by increasing the prices of the other articles in order to


get back capital expended and a reasonable profit. How could the Price Commission assess whether an article such as that would sell, and at what price?

Mrs. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is right. British industry will be burdened with such dilemmas as a result of the inadequacy of the safeguard provisions.
The existing safeguards comprise a number of relaxations most of which have been obtained during the last three years from the Secretary of State's predecessor because they were essential safeguards and not because the Secretary of State wanted to give them.
I am told that when concessions were made under the present Price Code last year—some of them affecting safeguards—a firm undertaking was given that any subsequent safeguards would not be worse. As a result, some companies invested heavily and those companies now feel that they have been tricked and cheated. This makes it all the more regrettable.
However, despite the weighty and informed representations that have been made to the Secretary of State, despite our pleadings in Committee—and, goodness knows, they were prolonged—and despite the deplorably low levels of profitability for British industry—50 per cent. of companies with profits so low that they are already in the safety net—the Secretary of State has seen fit to ignore all of that and to propose in his consultative document safeguards that fall short of the low levels already in existence. It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman was unable to produce his document until the last moment, because undoubtedly the investment that has taken place between the time when the Bill was first mooted and the publication of safeguards would not have taken place.
It is now impossible to estimate exactly how much investment will be lost, and how many jobs. That is likely to happen on an increasing scale as a result of inadequate safeguards.
What it is possible to estimate, however, is the difference in value between what is in existence and what our amendment would establish, albeit inadequately, and what is proposed in the con-

sultative document. The assessment is that the proposed interim and final safeguards are worth, respectively, two-thirds and a half of the 1976 safeguards.
In addition, the valuable safeguards in the 1976 code covered the erosion of safeguards, with 1973 base dates. As margins have declined and the base dates for safeguards have been moved forward, their proposed equivalent has been considerably reduced in value.
Right across the country, British industrial companies will be significantly worse off than before—considerably worse off than if our amendment were accepted. Most of the ground that the Secretary of State has already conceded—and there is very little—relates to the safeguards during investigations rather than during the freeze proper. As I maintain that there should be no freeze during investigation, we consider this concession to be worthless. No account has been taken of the rapid rises in commodity prices—they are dealt with in a previous amendment. There are companies who total profits could be wiped out in three months during a commodity price rise coinciding with a period of investigation. Of course, commodity prices can rise rapidly. I shall later give the House examples of how certain companies could be adversely affected if our amendment is not accepted and the safeguard levels proposed in the consultative document introduced. I understand that the consultative period is seven days. That is absolutely ludicrous.
I want to deal with some of the principles involved and to discuss what the Secretary of State has declared to be his motivation for the body blow he has dealt to business and industry. The Secretary of State has said that the new lower levels are not a ceiling but a floor. What will cause many of the companies affected to fall through the floor is the inadequate level of safeguards affecting other companies.
If a market leader has a freeze on its prices that may not push that company below its own safeguard levels but it may force many of its competitors below the levels, so that they are unable to compete with the market leader without lowering the market prices. The lower the floor for the market leader, the lower still will be the floor for its competitors. This can mean bankruptcy in some cases,


because that lower floor may well be below an adequate safeguard level.
It is not just the Secretary of State who should be aware of the situation. The Minister of State has boasted of it on a number of occasions. He has said that when a price for a certain company is frozen it will be the epicentre of an earthquake with a ripple effect throughout industry. That is true. Will the Secretary of State say whether it is his intention that that should happen and whether he is prepared to see companies pushed below the safeguard floor in that way? The Secretary of State's safeguard proposals are a charter to turn British industry into a whole paddle of lame ducks. I understand that "paddle" is the correct collective noun for lame ducks.
However, the Secretary of State claims that companies on low profits will have nothing to fear from the safeguards. It is companies with average profits that should have nothing to fear from the safeguards and nothing less than that is acceptable. That is particularly true at the time when average profits, as a percentage of capital investment, are already at an absurdly low level. Some companies would be better off to put their investment money in a bank deposit account. Many people are keeping companies open because they are patriots and for no other reason. There is also a need to take account of the cyclical nature of profits, and the new safeguards do not appear to have done that sufficiently.
If a company has a prolonged cycle of lower profits and a short higher-profit cycle it could find that the safeguards fail to protect it during an untypical period of short-term high profits. The Secretary of State gave as the main raison d'être for the lowering of the safeguard floor the need to catch companies that, according to him, had gained too much advantage from existing safeguards. These are companies that had an advantageous historic based rate and that have not been as adversely affected by the existing Price Code as have many other companies and whole sectors of British industry. If that is the reason, it is unnecessary and unfair.
In attempting to find the solution, the Government will impose the same lower

levels, not just on those companies that they want to catch but on the whole of British industry, including the vast majority of companies that have had no advantages under the code. In order to catch a few companies the Secretary of State is whipping the lifebelt away from the whole of British industry, and that is unfair and unnecessary.
If some companies have had an advantageous base date, is there any evidence that they have been making excessive profits? I invite the Secretary of State to give us the evidence, because unless he has substantial evidence his proposals are nonsense.
The likelihood is that these companies have been subject to competition and that market forces have prevented their making excessive profits despite their advantageous position under the code. Even if such companies have been making higher than average profits, so what? The fact that they have been making profits that are higher than the norm, does not mean that the norm is acceptable or that there is any justification for jeopardising the whole of British industry to catch the few companies that have been making profits that are higher than an inadequate average.
I wish to give specific examples of how certain companies will be adversely affected by the difference in the safeguard levels proposed by the Government and those included in the amendment.
I start with company A, in the food industry. It is operating at an interim safeguard of 80 per cent. of base date margin. To operate at this safeguard level would mean a reduction in profits of 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. at an annual rate. Over the five months of the "semi-freeze" the loss would be proportionally greater. On the recommendation's safeguard of 50 per cent. of base date margin, the current margin on a product would be reduced by 40 per cent. after interest. The rate of return for a product before interest and tax would be reduced, on a historic cost basis, from 12½ per cent. to less than 10 per cent. In real terms, the rate of return would be nil and the likely effect of this situation would be a cutback in planned cash outflow of 25 per cent. for the product and most of the cuts would fall on fixed capital expenditure, with the result that the company


would review its less profitable activities to see what activities could be phased out to preserve the overall level of profitability—and jobs would be lost too.
Company B is a metal manufacturing company. Let us say that it is operating at 85 per cent. of its reference level. The 3 per cent. on costs safeguard is equivalent to 33 per cent. of its reference level. The respective figures for the 80 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the base date margins safeguards are 60 per cent. and 38 per cent.
Company C is in the food industry. If all products were subject to investigation, the effect would be to reduce profits by £700,000 during the investigation period. If the Commission recommendation was to maintain the interim price increase, the total loss of revenue over the year would be £2·8 million, or 20 per cent. of forecast profit. If the company were forced to operate for nine months on the 50 per cent. of base date margin safeguard, the total loss of profit would be £5·9 million, or more than 40 per cent. of forecast profit. The loss of profit in the latter case would also be equivalent to 40 per cent. of the investment expenditure planned for 1976–77, and that would also mean more lost jobs.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the hon. Lady saying that these circumstances would occur in this anomalous, if hypothetical, food industry only if every price increase were notified and every price were frozen?

6.15 p.m.

Mrs. Oppenheim: This would happen if every increase were subject to investigation and freezing during the investigation.

Mr. Hattersley: The words "subject to freezing" mean the same as "frozen". Does her case depend on every price being notified and every price being frozen?

Mrs. Oppenheim: If all products were subject to investigation, the effect would be, during the investigation period, to reduce profits by £700,000. That would be caused by the freeze during the investigation period alone and it could not be recovered if a company were found to be innocent.

Mr. Hattersley: This point is absolutely essential. The hon. Lady is saying that every product of this company would

be pre-notified to the Commission, that every application would be investigated, and that during the investigation the price of every product would be frozen. That is a pretty unlikely situation.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I agree that it is somewhat unlikely, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that in the food industry many manufacturers, such as Guinness, make only one product, and others make only two or three. That is why I gave the example to the House.
Company D is a miscellaneous manufacturing company that was operating under the paragraph 50 safeguard of the Price Code. The 10 per cent. code caused an erosion of the enterprise's net profit margin. It knew that the code could not force the net profit margin below 11·5 per cent., but under the new controls the "guaranteed" margin is reduced by nearly half to 5·75 per cent. While it is recognised that the proposed safeguards are floors, the lower safeguards must mean that the risk is considerably higher.
The company was planning to spend more than £8 million on capital expenditure over the next five years, half of which is for expansion, involving 350 new jobs. If the profitability of the company is to be reduced by the new controls and the inadequate safeguards, the expansionary investment programme will stop and the 350 new jobs will not be created.
Company E is also a miscellaneous manufacturing company. If it is operating under the paragraph 50 safeguards of the code, it is guaranteed a margin on sales of 9·9 per cent. However, because it took its last price increase in stages, the proposed 50 per cent. of base data margin safeguard would yield a margin on sales of only 2·9 per cent. which is below the 3 per cent. on cost safeguard This level of profit represents a pre-tax return on capital of less than 5 per cent. on a historic cost basis—which is a loss in real terms. If forced down to this level, the continued existence of the company would be thrown into jeopardy.
Company F is in the food industry. Taking account of the fact that competitor companies may be subject to investigation, with consequent "knock-on" or "back-marker" consequences for other


companies in the same industry, this company estimates that the profits that it earned could be reduced by 8 per cent.—equivalent to £2·8 million—by the interim safeguard proposals.
These are the sort of cases that will be put to the Price Commission. Examples have been given to me in good faith and I regard them as terrifying. If these situations develop as a result of the safeguard levels written into the consultative document, we must take a closer look at the Bill. From the examples that I have given it can be seen to what extent the Secretary of State intends further to erode profit margins at a time when the erosion of profits that has already taken place has probably killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and is killing the goslings that might have laid golden eggs in future.
The concern in business and industry was summed up in a letter sent to the Secretary of State by the CBI two days ago. It said:
At our meeting of Council on 15th June we discussed the proposed level of safeguards you intend introducing under Clause 9 of the Price Commission Bill. The discussion was held against the background of the two meetings the CBI has held with you on this subject, and a report on the content of the formal consultative document which you issued on 15th June and which contains no significant change in your position.
I understand there is no disagreement between us that your proposal for interim safeguards during the course of an investigation is equivalent in value on average to two-thirds of the level of the safeguards contained in the present Price Code, and, in the case of the safeguards which apply after investigations have been completed, the value on average is under half of the present Code safeguards.
I made this point earlier. The CBI said to the right hon. Gentleman:
In practice the position is even worse than these figures suggest, because only a very few companies—those earning less than 3 per cent. on costs, which is totally inadequate for most businesses—can be sure under your proposals that their current profitability will not be halved as a result of an investigation. In contrast, under the present Price Code, a significant number of companies know that their present profitability cannot be further reduced as a result of the operation of the Code.
It went on to say
We believe that industrial confidence could be undermined, with serious consequences for investments and jobs, if you continue with your intention to reduce so substantially the value of the safeguards for the investigatory

controls. It is inevitable that boards in assessing investment projects are bound to ask what is the worst possible position that the company could find itself in under the new controls. This is bound to influence their final decisions. It is essential that you should be fully aware of this potential adverse consequence of your actions.
The Secretary of State received that letter a couple of days ago. I hope that it made him think again. In all the years that his right hon. Friend, the previous Prices Secretary, was negotiating with the CBI she never once came away without an agreement. The Secretary of State has the unique distinction of failing to satisfy both the CBI and the TUC.
This brings me to one of the areas of even greater dissatisfaction than those I have mentioned so far. Under the old régime—we now look on it as the dear old régime, although we criticised it enough in the past—that we are attempting to preserve, safeguards could be based on the profit of an enterprise as a whole. The Secretary of State now proposes to do away with this and to apply safeguards to unit costs or to a range of products. This will mean that a company whose overall profit margins are below safeguard levels but who make one profitable item—which is one factor which may make the company economically viable—can, because the profit on that one item is high, have its overall profits reduced to bankruptcy level as a result of a freeze on the price of that one item. That is a ridiculous situation. I beg the Secretary of State to take notice of the advice he has been given that it is possible to draft safeguards that may apply to an enterprise as a whole, because I know that he tried to do so but found singular difficulty.
I hope that I have illustrated to the House the great dangers and unfairness inherent in the safeguards that are proposed—safeguards that go hand in hand with the totally imprecise criteria elsewhere in the Bill. I hope that I have demonstrated the urgent need for the House to accept the amendment, which seeks to write into the Bill a fall-back position beyond which companies cannot and should not be pushed. This will not prevent higher levels from being set in some cases if this proves desirable at a later date. It in no way impairs flexibility at the upper end. It merely provides for the continuance of an accepted familiar safety net.
I emphasise that we do not believe that even this proposal is adequate—merely that it is better than what the Secretary of State proposed. We believe that the only way that profitability should be assessed is by the percentage real return on total capital invested.
If the House rejects the amendment it will condemn British industry to uncertainty. It will be condoning a situation that will make forward planning difficult and in many cases impossible. It will undoubtedly halt investment and cause considerable unemployment. I do not believe that that is what the Secretary of State wants. Not one hon. Member wants that.
Those hon. Members who do not vote for this amendment will have a lot of explaining to do to their own constituents when unemployment starts to rise and they are told by their constituents that the companies in which they work have informed them that the reason for unemployment is that the safeguards under the new Price Commission Bill are too low.
I urge the House to accept this amendment, which is moderation itself, like all our amendments, and which represents rock-bottom in relation to profits. We believe that without this amendment no part of the Bill will be viable or acceptable to us even in the context of phase 3 of a pay policy.
As Austen Walker, who is chairman not of the Price Commission but of Air Products, said of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in the CBI Spring Review,
This is a safety net for lame ducks, not an incentive for the entrepreneurial enterprise and investment which are essential for the success of the Government's industrial strategy.
A journey with one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake is likely to be long, jerky and frustrating, and the vehicle may never reach its destination. I submit that if our amendment is not accepted that is precisely the journey to which this House will condemn the whole of British Industry.

Mr. Hattersley: I begin with some of the facts about which the hon. Lady asked me or on which she commented, so that we may be clear at first. At one point she spoke about the consultative document, which is the basis of this debate. She said that it would be preposterous if in-

dustry were to be given seven days to consult about it. She is right. That is why, under paragraph 26 of the consultative document we invited industry to take 28 days to consult about it.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Perhaps there is a mistake in the letter that was sent to me in the House today marked "Urgent". It reads:
Dear Mrs. Oppenheim, I am sure you are quite right to complain about this Bill. I am sending you this copy of our response to the DPCP consultative document issued last week on a seven-day notice".

Mr. Hattersley: I am no more responsible for the hon. Lady's correspondence than I am for her inaccuracies.
Paragraph 26 of the consultative document, which this debate is about, says that industry has between 15th June and 15th July.

Mr. Sainsbury: Would it be of interest if I read the relevant section? The end of paragraph 26 of the document says that any comments on the propoals in this document which are received by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection within the next seven days will be taken into account in the drafting of the regulations, but all comments which reach the Department by Friday 15th July—which I think would approximate to the right hon. Gentleman's 28 days—will be considered before the regulations are made. Therefore only comments which reach the Department within seven days will be taken into account in the drafting.

Mr. Hattersley: I went over all this ground in Committee. I explained that it was always our practice in a consultative period to offer industry not two courtesies but two advantages—advantages to the Government as well as to industry. We said "We shall construct a piece of paper. If you will help us in constructing it we shall be grateful. After that piece of paper is constructed we should like your comments upon it."
Paragraph 26 gives seven days to help in the construction of the piece of paper and 28 days in which to consult upon it. That is a simple statement of fact. It is an admirable statement of fact.
This is the second matter of fact which I must raise with the hon. Lady. She is right to say that in preparing the consultative document on safeguards I have satisfied neither the CBI nor the TUC,


although I satisfied the TUC a great deal more than I satisfied the CBI. The TUC's view is that the safeguards are unreasonably protective to industry. It is not altogether reasonable for her to complain that one of my major failures consists of satisfying neither party when she wanted me to move towards one party's extreme position.
That is the third fact. I hope that if the hon. Lady is able to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, she will make her position clear on the previous policy, to which she has referred so often, and its safeguards, to which she now clings.
She called the old system of cost and margin control "the dear old régime which we are attempting to preserve". I hope, in the few moments before we conclude the Report stage and Third Reading, to make it clear that the old system of cost control and margin control is the dear old régime which we are attempting to preserve. That is a new development of Conservative policy.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: May I clarify the matter simply? The "dear old régime" is the present system of safeguards under the present Price Code, not necessarily the Price Code itself. The Price Code which the Minister has amended is singularly more popular with business and industry than is the Price Commission Bill.

Mr. Hattersley: I see. The hon. Lady describes it as the "dear old régime". It seems that she wants to extract bits of that régime to graft on to a new régime. I understand her position but I do not understand the logic of it.
6.30 p.m.
I turn to some points on which the hon. Lady and I may agree. First, I agree entirely that the problem that we are facing this afternoon when talking about safeguards is as much psychological as financial and economic. None the less, I agree that it is important. Many of the most decisive issues in industry, especially investment decisions, are more concerned with psychology than finance. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with me—this is an issue on which I think the CBI and I coincided—when I say that the psychology of industry is something that we all help to create. If there are speeches

made in Parliament that show that that confidence is being undermined, confidence, to a degree, is undermined. It is the duty of us all to do what we can to preserve confidence.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that the same is equally true when distrust between management and labour is deliberately created?

Mr. Hattersley: Yes. I am against distrust between management and labour. That has no relevance to what we are discussing but if the hon. Lady wants me to say it, I am against it.
The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that I observed my obligation to the Committee in fulfilling my undertaking that before we reached this afternoon's proceedings the consultative document would be available to the House. I am grateful for the hon. Lady's thanks. It was wholly right for me to provide the document. It was equally right that I promised to do so. I do not believe that a meaningful debate could have taken place without a statement of the safeguards. It was our duty and our wish that the House should be in a position to understand our proposals.
The hon. Lady will understand that the document poses a certain difficulty. I said to the CBI on my second meeting with it—I meant this as sincerely as I meant the undertaking that I would publish the document before the debate—that it is a genuine consultative document. However, there are possibilities of change and alteration. I am sure that the hon. Lady and the House will understand that what I say about the document is by no means the last word. I stress that there are possibilities of change. I do not propose to hide behind the document.
I must tell the House honestly that nothing else would make a satisfactory and sensible debate. I do not believe that the changes that might be made could or should provide industry with a safeguard that is the equivalent of that which appears in the present code. I shall try to explain why that should be so, as I tried to do in Committee.
First, safeguards have two meanings in the Bill. When we first talked about safeguards when the Bill was written, we did not mean what we are now discussing. We meant a number of things deliberately


written into the Bill to preserve industry's interests and to give it a degree of confidence. We meant the nature of the Commission, the possibility of interim price increases determined by the Commission during investigations, the Commission's independent right to make investigations and independently to decide levels of interim price awards, and the possibility that we discussed earlier that if the Commission were to go corporately crazy the Secretary of State could veto its proposals to protect industry. That is what safeguards meant initially.
Those are the safeguards that seem to be intellectually consistent with a selective prices policy that imposes on the Commission a great deal of discretion to decide which companies it investigates and which prices it freezes. They are intellectually consistent safeguards that I believe are generally adequate.
The other sort of safeguard is the term of art that has become the mathematical or arithmetical floor safeguard. It is something that we included during the consultative period. In fact, the Price Code is littered with consultative periods. We included the arithmetical safeguard at the wish of industry. We promised to include it and we included it as a statutory legal obligation within the Bill. We were right to do so, not because it is the sort of safeguard that has any real place in a flexible discretionary system but because by including it we did a great deal to assure industry that our policies were bound to protect it. We were bound to do so although industry's real safeguards are those that I have described.
If the House thinks about these matters it will realise that the hon. Lady's notion of the three deputy chairman chairing the investigations and inquiries and being in charge of a team considering one of the specific price increases is inconceivable. It is inconceivable that any of the three men will act in the arbitrary, destructive and economically illiterate way that is sometimes feared and implied. It is inconceivable that the deputy chairmen would behave in that way. That is the real safeguard.
As I have said, the hon. Lady is right to say that the problem is as psychological as it is financial and economic. We have tried to produce arithmetical figures to underpin and to give a degree of con-

fidence that should be there anyway. I believe that that degree of confidence is wholly consistent with the operation of this prices policy. That is not the policy that comes to an end on the last day of July—the "dear old régime"—but the prices policy which is to replace it.
I remind the hon. Lady of the characteristics of the régime that comes to an end on the last day of July. It is wholly arbitrary. It applies in its arbitrary arithmetical fashion to 80 per cent. of British industry. It is based on historic performance and requires 80 per cent. of industry to respond in an arbitrary way that is related to historic performance. If we say to company A, B, C or D that it is required to charge prices that are a percentage of those that it charged in 1973 or 1976, that it is obliged to secure profit margins that are a fixed percentage of those that obtained in 1973 or 1976, we are placing an arbitrary and dangerous requirement on industry. We are placing that requirement on the good and the bad alike, on the profitable and the virtually bankrupt alike, on the near-viable and the far-from-viable alike. In those circumstances, we would be bound to provide a safeguard that underpinned even the least efficient of companies.
I have no doubt that the old safeguards applied generally to every company in industry. I accept that it was right that they were pitched at their previous level. Equally, I have no doubt of the result. For some companies teetering on the edge of viability, the safeguards were in one sense hardly enough while in another sense they were more than enough. Some companies did not produce margins that reached the safeguard levels but the safeguards related to historic performance and gave a certain sanctity to the profit levels that were made three or five years ago. There is no doubt that for some companies the safeguard levels almost sanctified the position that they had been in three or four years previously.
Stratifying British industry in that way and casting it permanently in its historic mould is the concept from which the new and flexible prices policy attempts to get away. The discretionary element of the policy is that the three deputy chairmen with a group of colleagues will be able to examine a company's price proposals without being required to measure them


against the company's historical performance or against any arbitrary figures. That is why in one sense an arithmetical safeguard is wholly inappropriate. However, as I believe that it is in the interests of British industry to have its confidence bolstered by providing such a safeguard, I thought it right to write one into the Bill.
What I could not do, and what I do not think my hon. Friends would have voted for, was to write a safeguard level into the Bill that disqualified the Commission from examining the pricing policies of three-quarters of British industry. The fact is that if the hon. Lady were to write into the Bill the provisions that she seeks, at least 75 per cent. of manufacturing industry would automatically be excluded from the provisions of the Bill in so far as they involve price freezes.

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman says that we should be exempting three-quarters of British industry. That is an enormous span. Does he suggest that the examination can be properly and efficiently carried out by the Commission?

Mr. Hattersley: No. What I do suggest, and I have been suggesting it in the hon. Gentleman's presence and elsewhere for four months, is that the Price Commission will examine, on its own initiative, about 40 cases a year. What I said a moment ago, I am sure very inadequately, since the hon. Gentleman could not understand me, is that I do not believe the Price Commission should be prevented from choosing those 40 cases from 75 per cent. of British industry. I understand that there is a great distinction between the parties—perhaps doctrinal, perhaps philosophical—about whether the Government should be prepared, willing and anxious to intervene in these industrial decisions, but on the Government side of the House we believe that it should. I hope that the Opposition will see that since we believe that as a matter of principle it is unreasonable to expect us to apply that principle in such a way that 75 per cent. of British industry is excluded from these provisions.

Mr. William Shelton: If the present safeguard levels proposed by the Secretary of State did become law, what proportion of British industry would be

precluded by them does the Secretary of State think?

Mr. Hattersley: A substantial proportion, but a smaller proportion, perhaps something like 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I said a moment ago—and in no sense was it an apology—that these were intellectually consistent industrial price arithmetic safeguards which have no real place in a discretionary system, but I thought it was right to reassure industry in this way and they appear for this reason.

Mr. Burden: What concerns me is that although they will undertake the examination of probably 40 cases in a year they cover a very wide and diversified range of British industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that there will be present on the Commission people with sufficient knowledge to cover that whole area, or will they be able to co-opt into their investigations people with particular knowledge of an industry where they do not themselves possess such knowledge?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question. Perhaps this is the right moment to tell the House something that I intended to say during my reply to a subsequent amendment. I propose to make an order, against which the House can pray, which would extend the membership of the Price Commission from 12 to 16 specifically to meet the hon. Gentleman's point. If we are to have people on the Commission who understand the interests of a wide section of industry, commerce and business, we need 16 members. I certainly wish that to be achieved and I promise the House that I shall attempt to do that.

Mr. Rhodes James: That would not be an affirmative order; it would be an order against which the House would have to pray.

Mr. Hattersley: Yes, it would, and the House will perhaps do so, but the House will then have to decide if a Commission is sufficiently representative with 12 members, who may not have the whole range of information that I think ought to be represented in the Commission. I hope I have convinced the Opposition; I like to explain what I am doing so that they can criticise my real policies rather than policies I have kept from them.
I come now to the final and most essential point—whether the provision of safeguards at the level I propose, or round about those levels, since it is a consultative document, is going to be detrimental to industry. For my own part I have no doubt that it is not. I am conscious of what some industrial companies have said; I am conscious of what the CBI have said. I must say—and I am sure that since, very properly, the hon. Lady talks to the CBI as much as I do, they have reported this to her—that when the representatives of the CBI were last in my Department I thought it right to tell them that many individual companies, in consultations with the Department, had taken a different view about the safeguards and their detrimental effect from that taken by the CBI. Indeed, the later part of the letter from which the hon. Lady quoted ends with a paragraph which is a reference to our suggestions, evidence and assertion that many companies do not fear the arithmetical safeguard levels in the way the CBI do. I think those companies are right, for reasons with which I will conclude what I have to say at the moment.
6.45 p.m.
If a company is contemplating an investment decision there are many things which influence the eventual choice made but I do not believe that the prospect of a Price Commission investigation in the terms the hon. Lady gave in her examples is remotely influential. First of all, as one contemplates one's investment decision one is conscious that only 40 of these decisions are going to happen each year, and there are not thousands but tens of thousands of notifying companies, notifying hundreds of thousands of prices. Therefore, simply as a matter of probability, the prospect of a frozen price is pretty remote.
Secondly, if it is a company of the sort the Bill intends to encourage it knows a bit about the Price Commission also. One needs to know a little about it to be as afraid of it as the hon. Lady suggests companies might be. One knows who the people are who are running it, one knows the legal criteria against which one is required to operate, and one knows what are the safeguards implicit in the Bill. If one knows all these things and still fears that an arbitrary, unreasonable and—I do not shy away from the

expression—economically illiterate Commission is going to descend on one and drive down margins and profit levels in a wholly intolerable way—which for my part I would not begin to defend—one has the arithmetical safeguard as the failsafe, the fall-back, and a number of other mixed metaphors which the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) will refer to when he speaks in this debate.
One has that final protection, and because of that I believe that the concern that has been expressed is unreasonable. Although it is unreasonable, I am nevertheless determined to fulfil my promise to prepare the arithmetical safeguards and look for adjustments in the consultative document, but they cannot be the 1976 safeguards, because that would make this policy unworkable. If we have convinced the Opposition of nothing else during the last I do not know how many hours I hope we have convinced them that the Government and Government policy intend to make the Price Commission an instrument of intervention in the economy and cannot possibly accept levels of safeguards which prevent that happening.

Mr. Sainsbury: One must admit that sometimes the Secretary of State sounds almost plausible; it almost sounds as if he cared for something other than his own personal position in the party and the advantage that he will be able to take of the mechanism he is asking the House to introduce. He showed a glimmer of wisdom not given to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the hon. Gentleman is making offensive personal implications I think he had better begin by stating his own personal interest.

Mr. Sainsbury: If the right hon. Gentleman had been here when I spoke briefly earlier in the debate he would have heard me declare my interest quite clearly at that time. I do not think it is the custom of the House to repeat such declarations. The right hon. Gentleman is in his place. If he does not care for anything that I say about him—if he thinks it is untrue—he is entitled to prove the reverse, and the best way to do that—which I would welcome and which would bring from me and from British industry a full-hearted apology—


would be not to behave in the way that British industry confidently expects he will behave on the basis of his own past record.
He talked about psychology, and of course he is right. Confidence and psychology are very critical factors in investment. They are very critical factors in job creation. I cannot, as I said before, expect Labour Members below the Gangway to have much understanding of this, but I welcome the fact that above the Gangway there is some recognition of this point.

Mr. Loyden: I was very impressed by the hon. Gentleman's contribution earlier this morning, when he was talking about streaky bacon and back bacon. He impressed the House very much with his knowledge of that subject. I would rather listen to a further contribution of that sort than to the diatribe that he is putting out now about his knowledge of Labour Members below the Gangway.

Mr. Sainsbury: If I were to address my remarks to the amendment about which we were talking in the early light of this day, I should very properly be ruled out of order; therefore I return to the very important amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has introduced.
I was referring to the fact that the Secretary of State has emphasised, very rightly, the importance of psychology and confidence in continuing investment, job creation and continuing innovation, without which our industry and commerce cannot expect to be successful. Having said that, I put it to the Secretary of State that a number of things that he said in his remarks on this amendment alone would be very damaging to that very confidence that he claims to wish to build up in British industry.
The Secretary of State, from what he said, seems to regard satisfying the TUC's view on economics more fully than the CBI's view as a sensible economic achievement. I find it very hard to believe that anyone who has pretensions to economic literacy could really believe that to be sensible policy, because this country has suffered too long from a Government who seem all too willing to give in to

the latest crazy and damaging idea emanating from the TUC. We all see the damage now, unhappily, in the growing level of unemployment, which surely must be something to which even the right hon. Gentleman would have careful regard.
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if he thinks he is restoring the confidence of British industry by saying that he takes pride in the fact that his policy more nearly approximates to that of the TUC than to that of the CBI, he is profoundly mistaken.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to take pride in arranging for his publicity machine to refer to the Bill as one that is designed to prevent "unnecessary price increases." That is not a phrase which is to be found in the Short Title, the Long Title, or, as far as I know, anywhere in the Bill. I can tell him that British industry and commerce do not regard this Bill as a Bill to prevent unnecessary price increases so much as a Bill to threaten massive intervention, unjustified and unquantified, against very vague and loose criteria which could prevent the price increases which alone could ensure sufficient profitability to justify and support investment, innovation and job creation. The phrase "unnecessary price increases" may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman but it is a scandalously inaccurate description of the purpose of the Bill.
My next point to the right hon. Gentleman is that he not infrequently adopts the approach that anybody who is even so bold as to delay the speedy passage of this legislation through this House is against all forms of price control and is therefore quite beyond the economic pale. He might care to reflect for a moment on the effect of getting his Bill wrong. In some of his remarks he seemed to recognise that it could be possible to get it wrong. He thinks he has got it right but he has recognised that if it were to go wrong it could be damaging.
If the right hon. Gentleman would consider for a moment the consequence upon investment and upon employment of having damaging legislation of this type, at this very time when we have heard the latest appalling figures of the levels of unemployment, particularly of school leavers, he could perhaps afford the


House the courtesy of allowing a very careful consideration indeed of the whole scope of the Bill and the amendments which are being brought before the House.
For that reason, if for no other—although I am sure that everyone in the Chamber is full of vitality and that our brains are as alert as ever, if not more so—I regret that we are having to consider this critical and vital matter after we have been debating for about 29 hours. Although we may be aware of our alertness, it occurs to me that outside observers, including those responsible for the conduct of our industry and commerce, may not be quite convinced that we are as alert as we might be. I think they would probably be reluctant to entrust their top management with critical decisions if the people concerned had been without much rest for some 29 hours. I certainly should if the matter were anything to do with my responsibility.
There is one other factor which compounds one's doubts about the right hon. Gentleman's approach to the Bill. Usually he is accompanied, at least on this matter, by the Liberal colleagues of the Labour Party. They are noticeably absent at this critical juncture in our deliberations. I suspect that it is not for the first time since we have been talking about the Bill. I feel that their ready acceptance to go along with the right hon. Gentleman's Bill really affects the abysmal record of the Liberal Party in matters economic, stretching right back to the First World War.
We are concerned here with safeguards for basic profits. That is what it says in the rubric of the clause. That in itself immediately raises doubts and uncertainties in the mind of anyone who is concerned in investment in industry or commerce. What is a basic profit? The implication must be that anything above whatever a basic profit may be is questionable. Perhaps, in the right hon. Gentleman's phrase, it might be an unnecessary profit. It is at least open to question. If we have stepped into the area of being open to question, obviously we should look at Clause 2 and examine the criteria to see whether they, by themselves, remove the worry that we might otherwise have about the inadequacies of the clause without the amendment which we are now discussing.
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to an article, which I am sure he saw, in the Financial Times of Wednesday 23rd February 1977, which stated:
Firms have a right to be able to make their plans with a fairly clear idea whether such and such a course of action will or will not set off a Price Commission inquiry into their affairs. Mr. Hattersley, therefore, has supplied a list of seven criteria to which he and the Price Commission will pay particular regard: but these are couched in such general terms as to be of little immediate practical value.
I have heard nothing from any quarter since that goes any way to contradict that informed opinion from that informed journal. One cannot regard those Clause 2 criteria as of any real practical value in providing reassurance to somebody whose doubts might be aroused by the statements and, indeed, the actions of the Secretary of State.

Mr. Viggers: The Commission will take regard to profits only in so far as it considers profits to be relevant. This is the result of the substantive clause which the Government have insisted on, refusing our amendment. So profits should be taken into consideration only in so far as the Commission considers it relevant to do so.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point. I suspect that the closer that one examines every part of the Bill—I was not on the Committee—the more of these points one finds in which there is no substantial confidence-building factor. The criteria in Clause 2 against the background which my hon. Friend has pointed out cannot be regarded as likely to restore any confidence that might be eroded by the right hon. Gentleman's statements or behaviour.
Therefore, we are driven inevitably to Clause 9 and the consultative document where we read the words:
provisions designed to reassure enterprises that the new powers cannot be used to depress the general level of productivity or to subject individual firms to restrictions which would threaten viability.
This is a very strange use of language, to be told that new powers cannot be used to depress the general level of profitability. If they cannot be used for that purpose, I begin to wonder what it is that they could ever be used for. If they are


used for anything at all, it must be to depress the general levels of productivity.
The Bill provides a floor, which is also referred to in the consultative document. But the lower one sets the floor—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree with this—the greater is the area of uncertainty. One of the major areas of uncertainty is the problem of cyclical profits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester referred.
The right hon. Gentleman may not personally be aware of the problems which arose in the early days of the Price Commission, with the cyclical profits of companies within one year, but I am sure his Department is. In the early days of the Price Commission it adopted the suggestion—not as a statutorily enshrined approach—of looking at companies' profits on a period basis, not recognising, I fear, that this was a totally inadequate way of approaching the profit picture of most companies. There was also the drawback that perhaps far too many companies would not be able to provide sufficiently accurate figures on a quarterly basis to enable a judgment to be made because they would not be subject to audit.
For some time this problem of cyclical profits within one year was a matter of considerable contention between commerce and industry and the Price Commission. It was eventually resolved in the only sensible and logical way, namely, on a yearly basis.
It is equally true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester pointed out, that there are cyclical profits with a much longer time scale than one year. This is most true when one is developing investment situations, building up employment in new plants and new products.
I fail to see, anywhere in the right hon. Gentleman's consultative document or in the Bill, that this situation is in anyway taken into account. The right hon. Gentleman may well say that modifications can be introduced. I recognise that he can introduce modifications into the consultative document, but if one is talking about uncertainty I can think of no factor more likely to introduce and retain a massive level of uncertainty in British industry than a document which has such

a wide area of uncertainty, which may or may not be the subject of investigation against these very grave criteria, and which is itself subject to modification and is proudly presented by the right hon. Gentleman as being so flexible.
Industry will have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about not being able to get his hon. Friends to vote for something different. Industry is all too well aware of the Luddite attitude of all too many of his hon. Friends below the Gangway and, I suspect, one or two above the Gangway, in terms of profitability and investment in British industry and the growth of prosperity in this country, without which we shall not begin to overcome the problems of unemployment.
His hon. Friends, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, would not vote for adequate safeguards. If this is his attitude—if he is not prepared to fight for what he believes ought to be adequate safeguards—I suggest that that is another reason for being suspicious of his professed dedication to seeing adequate profits and proper rewards for industry.
The amendment writes safeguards into the Bill. I do not think that it writes in safeguards that are adequate. I regard them as somewhat unsatisfactory. They are not adequate in terms of figures and inevitably the profit margin provisions have to refer back a very long way to the base period. The longer we go on with these unwieldy and largely unnecessary procedures the more out of date becomes the base reference period. The most adequate safeguard of all to the consumer is totally ignored—the effect of competition.
My hon. Friend referred to the problem of the Price Commission investigation which compulsorily reduces the prices of the brand leader, the product leader, the major retailer or distributor in any area. If this is done, inevitably everybody else's prices will have to go down.
We can say firmly that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to reassure industry with Clause 9, and he has compounded his failure with the introduction of this consultative document. The best safeguard to industry is to remove altogether the risk of these totally indeterminate investigations, to remove from industry the suspicions that it must


have that an opportunity has been provided for selective, politically-motivated intervention, short-term considerations which would be as damaging over the medium and longer term to the consumer as they would be to British industry.
The best safeguard would be freedom from the disastrous interference to which this Bill opens the way. If we cannot have that, I would accept this amendment as a considerable improvement. If by some mischance we do not get this amendment, we are told that this is a consultative document and I believe that it is still seven days, just, since it was published. Therefore, it is still open for comments to be taken into consideration in the drafting instead of being taken into consideration only in the issuing of the regulations.
I would put one plea to the right hon. Gentleman. If he does nothing else, will he look again at the figure-work relating to new investment? When one looks at the figures suggested in his consultative document and one sees that the turnover capital ratio produces a return on capital of 9 per cent. at the 3:1 area and 10 per cent. return on capital at lower figures, in the current situation of inflation, how can he possibly imagine that that would provide other than a positive deterrent to investment?
If nothing else, will he not find a way of providing a much greater return on capital, at least for those who are going to invest? No company in its right mind will invest for a 10 per cent. return if it has to pay more to borrow. I hope that we shall have the amendment instead of the consultative document.

Mr. William Shelton: A different view is taken of safeguards by the Secretary of State and by the Opposition. I understand the Secretary of State's position and that he had no alternative when he said that he could not increase the safeguard levels because that would exclude too many companies. I can understand his problems in his party and in different parts of the country. He says that he does not want to exclude 75 per cent. of companies.
We on the Opposition Benches consider safeguards, not from the point of view of the percentage of companies excluded from the supervision of the Price

Commission but from the point of view of how effective they will be. I do not know what experience the right hon. Gentleman has had in industry, but companies do not say that they should be included because 75 per cent. of all companies are included. Instead, the chairman asks his company secretary to find out whether the consultative document affects the company. A little later, the secretary comes back with an ashen face and says that it will indeed include the company and describes its effects.
The examples given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) are just the examples that the company secretary would quote. As my hon. Friend gave her examples, I watched the Secretary of State's expression. He was obviously taken aback. I understand that the examples are factual. The right hon. Gentleman intervened to say that it was most unlikely that the Commission would simultaneously investigate and put a freeze on all the various products of a single company. But it is not unlikely to company directors, reading an analysis of the safeguarding document.

Mr. Hattersley: I am grateful for the area of agreement between us and I understand the hon. Member's point. But that did not take him to another point that I tried to make—relating to confidence. Confidence to invest and expand is in part what we make it, and if we do not believe that the companies will be treated in a Draconian way we have an obligation to promote confidence by saying so, rather than expressing fears that the Commission will behave absurdly.

Mr. Shelton: I accept that, and I do not believe that the extreme cases could happen, but the possibility, and the fact that companies are advised of it, must cause concern.

Mr. Burden: The Minister made a conciliatory reply to my point about the difficulties of investigation unless people were co-opted with particular knowledge of an industry which might not be very well known to those investigating a board of directors. We know that in a particular industry, firms operate in different ways and with differing powers. I believe that an industry, rather than individual firms, should be examined so that a true overall picture is gained.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Shelton: That is a very good point, but when it is impossible to examine one firm properly, how can a whole industry be examined?
This level of uncertainty is at the kernel of our argument. The document is designed to reassure. Any business man, however, would quickly lose his assurance. He would be happy to see the words in paragraph 2:
for the great majority of enterprises, pricing decisions will not be subject to external rules and will revert to business judgment
but would not be happy about the following words:
under the surveillance of the new policy".
I was interested in the distinction that the Minister drew between the arbitrariness of the old policy and the discretionary nature of the new one. In fact, the new one is more arbitrary, because there is no written guideline; it is the arbitrariness of individual judgments by the Commission.
We have established that the right hon. Gentleman's level of safeguards is pitched so as to include a certain percentage of firms. We say that the level is pitched regardless of what sort of percentage it includes, at a level which will be dangerous for business confidence and prosperity.
I had intended to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the number of bankruptcies last year as compared with preceding years, and the low level of profitability of business. The Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin for June 1977 says:
As a whole, the figures presented do not suggest an encouraging outlook for investment. The rates of return are still extremely low, with little prospect of any marked recovery in the future.
The Secretary of State admits that it is in that kind of business situation that these low safeguard levels are being imposed.
I agree that the CBI has calculated that the value of the interim safeguards are reduced to two-thirds of the old ones, and that the final safeguards are only 40 or 50 per cent. of the old ones. With the slight relaxation in the previous Price Code since last July, no doubt many companies have increased their forward planning, profitability and investment levels. I hope so, but they

may render themselves liable to investigation by the new Commission, whereas they would not be liable at present. That must be damaging for them.
A company may make its forward plan for two or three years within the terms of the Price Commission and then find that, because of these changes, it moves into a vulnerable situation. Of course, the Secretary of State and others and I know that the Price Commission will use its powers in a discreet and delicate way, but those in the board room will not know that. Therefore, because of increased investment, the company may find itself moving into a vulnerable situation which it would not have obtained under the old system.
Mention has been made of the level of industrial profitability—only 4 per cent. in real terms as a return on capital. With such a low margin, how can we talk of using this kind of instrument in the guise of increasing competition?
Finally, I think that, rightly or wrongly, many companies will believe that pitching the safeguards at such a low level will allow the Government or the Price Commission to intervene in the case of a far larger number of companies than would have been the case had the safeguards been pitched at their present level. This belief, which I share to some extent, can only be damaging. I fear for the consequences if the amendment is not passed.

Mr. Shersby: I should like to draw the Secretary of State's attention to some points on the amendment dealing with safeguards. I shall be brief. However, I hope that he will be able to consider my points before dealing with the final draft of this important document. I think that my best course is to make the points and ask him to amplify and clarify them tonight or, alternatively, to consider them during the preparation of the final draft.
I should make it clear that I am raising these points because they have been drawn to my attention by the Food and Drink Industries Council, of which I am a member. These points have also been drawn to the right hon. Gentleman's attention in correspondence, but I know that he will not mind if I mention them briefly.
The first point concerns the base dates for price increases. It now seems clear


that the Bill will probably not receive the Royal Assent, and therefore the regulations will probably not be made, until some time next month—in other words. towards the end of July. Therefore, I suggest that it would be right for the additional month to be taken into account in specifying the base dates. In other words, the base dates for price increases against which the margin over total costs for interim price increases will be calculated should be 1st August and 1st July, respectively, rather than 1st July and 1st June, as proposed in paragraph 13 of the consultative document.
Then there is the modification in some circumstances of the basic 3 per cent. minimum margin over total costs proposed in paragraph 12. Does the Secretary of State agree that that should apply in the post-investigation period as well as during the investigation? I hope that he does. The argument in the consultative document for confining it to the investigation period is rather weak, to say the least.
I turn next to the 80 per cent. of base margins safeguard proposed in paragraph 13. That seems to be too low and is not justified by the arguments advanced. I know that it is defended by the statement in paragraph 14 that the Government can make it as high as 80 per cent. because the Commission will have
insufficient information upon which to justify any more severe reduction in the margin currently earned".
As the information is insufficient to reduce the margin during the investigation, it seems to be unfairly prejudging the outcome of the investigation. I suggest that a 20 per cent. reduction seems unreasonable. I hope that the Secretary of State will have another look at that point.
I should also be grateful if he would look again at the proposed 50 per cent. of base margin safeguard against post-investigation erosion proposed in paragraph 14. Surely that is on the low side.
Finally, I should like to probe the right hon. Gentleman's intention regarding paragraph 10. For example, what does it mean when it states that
during investigations the safeguard needs to relate not only to the product itself but also, if indirectly, to the circumstances of the enterprise".

I think that should be made clearer. There is need for considerable amplification of that paragraph. I feel that when a company secretary or director looks at that paragraph he needs to understand more clearly what is intended. We know that the regulations in draft form are complex. I appeal to the Secretary of State to put them, if possible, into a more easily readable form, so that people can grasp what is intended.

Mr. Giles Shaw: In view of the extreme importance of this debate I wondered whether we should have a summing up of approximately 45 minutes to go through all the points that have been made. I considered that possibility, but decided on the whole that it would be unwise in the circumstances, apart from the fact that I do not think that I am capable of handling it for that time.
The main difference outlined by the Secretary of State, which we fully recognise, is the emotional attitudinal view on how the Price Commission works. That is the major factor which divides us. The right hon. Gentleman sees it as primarily an interventionist organism.
When we discussed the safeguard levels for profits, it was clear that the Secretary of State was concerned about the number of companies which would come within the net and, therefore, would escape the possibility of price freeze and investigations. That we understand, but frankly deplore. We believe that it is crucial to protect the profitability and investment potential of British industry. It is for that reason that we have moved an amendment which seeks to relate the new profit levels to those presently being enjoyed.
The Secretary of State would be unwise to believe that the Bill will not have a difficult running-in period. It is clear that in the discussions so far between the Department and representatives of industry there has been the feeling that they have not been able to meet as much as they should in terms of agreeing on a new proposal. They have met frequently, but there has not been the meeting of minds on pricing policy which might have been hoped for.
Our situation is clear. We deeply deplore the view that price freezing should become the order of the day to satisfy


the whims of those in the Labour Party who believe that outward visible signs of activity are a substitute for a prices policy.
We believe that the biggest single contribution is to increase the profitability of industry so that employment and investment can flow therefrom. It is for these reasons that we seek to increase the safety margin for profits. Therefore, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to endorse the amendment in the Lobbies.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 252.

[For Division List No. 179, see c. 1673]

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

DIRECTIONS TO EXAMINE QUESTIONS

Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 14, line 37, after 'efficiency', insert:
'reductions in quality without reductions in prices or charges'.
The purpose of the amendment is to go some way towards meeting an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in Committee following representations that he and a number of my hon. Friends had made about the desirability of the Price Commission bearing in mind and giving particular regard to reductions in quality as a means of concealing a price increase. The amendment provides that in giving a direction to the Commission under the clause which is in respect of sectoral examinations of industry, the Secretary of State may frame the question so as to draw the Commission's attention in particular to reductions in quality without reductions in prices or charges.
I recognise that this does not go as far as my hon. Friend would have wished in respect of investigations. However, I hope that he will accept that it emphasises the importance that we attach to the point that he was making and that he will support the amendment, which I hope the House will find acceptable.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: I welcome the advances that the Secretary of State has made in regard to the amendment. In Committee we raised the question of hidden price increases. It was recognised by the Secretary of State and, I think, by the Opposition, that this question should be a matter for the prerogative of the Office of Fair Trading or the Price Commission. That was argued in Committee.
It would certainly be churlish of me not to recognise that the Government have gone some way along the line to meeting the points raised in Committee concerning hidden price increases and their effect on prices in general. A number of submissions were made in Committee that indicated to the Government the concern of Labour Members not only about prices as we can identify them but also about hidden price increases. Examples are given in Committee, to which the Secretary of State has responded.
I am somewhat disappointed about one aspect of hidden price increases about which I still feel concerned, although the Minister has gone reasonably well along the road in meeting the points made in Committee. That is the question of volume, which is not necessarily expressed in the amendment. It is obvious that apart from the question of quality, which will be part of the Bill when the amendment is carried, there is also a question that is becoming of major concern to housewives throughout the country. That is the hidden price increases that occur through the reduction of the content weight in packages and tins of various commodities. While they retain their price levels—although in some cases these prices have been increased—the volume of the product being sold is less.
By and large, we accept that the question of inferior quality is probably more important, so I hope that quality will be something to which the Commission can respond as well as dealing with the matter of volume and other things.
We are concerned with this matter and other matters connected with consumer interests in the Bill which have been expressed only from the Labour Benches, and we feel that the Secretary of State has gone a long way towards meeting us on four or five other items. It is for that reason that I am prepared to accept the amendment and to tell my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State that I do so gracefully.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

AMENDMENTS OF PRICES ACT 1974

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, Amendment No. 48, in page 21, line 8, at end insert
'and that no part of a penny except one halfpenny is specified in the amount of an indicated price or charge'.
The amendment relates not to price control but to price display. It provides that we can make an order which would prevent price display except in units of the currency—that is ½p, 1p, £1 and so on. It arises from the practice of petrol filling stations advertising and displaying the prices of petrol in figures such as 82·6p or 92·9p per gallon. It becomes even more difficult when it is advertised at the pumps and is available only in complete gallons. It is quite difficult to complete a transaction involving two complete gallons at 82·9p, or a like figure.
Although this problem applies only to petrol filling stations, this is a practice that could spread. It has excited a great deal of consumer complaint. I am not saying that we should act across the board, and of course, we could act only by an order that had the approval of the House. However, now that this practice is developing, it would be wise to have reserve powers to deal with price display in decimal points.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

AMENDMENTS OF REMUNERATION, CHARGES AND GRANTS ACT 1975

Amendment made: No. 49, in page 22, line 4 at end insert:
'and for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) If section 1 of this Act has ceased to be in force before 31st July 1978 Her Majesty may by Order in Council bring it again into force for a period ending not later than that date.'.—[Mr. Hattcrsley.]

Clause 18

GRANTS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE IN PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT PRICES ETC.

Mr. Dodsworth: I beg to move Amendment No. 79, in page 22, line 21 at end insert:
'Provided that a draft of any such grant, stating the amount and terms proposed, shall be laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 74, in page 22, line 21 at end insert:
'( ) Before making a grant to a person under this section, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the information and advice disseminated by that person is accurate and of genuine usefulness to the users of goods and service.'

Mr. Dodsworth: Members of the Committee will recall the debate on the Question "That Clause 18 stand part of the Bill" in connection with the expenditure of moneys on information on prices, particularly grants. I shall address myself briefly to the narrow point of the control of the amount. There was some discussion in Committee about the form of control and whether, in fact, the inclusion of £3·5 million in the Estimates was sufficient control. The point was rightly made during the course of the debate that there was no statutory limit on the amount of money and that it was not difficult for the Department or the Minister to say "This authorises me to spend the money". But the real control lies elsewhere since it has to be agreed with the Treasury. As my hon. Friend for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) has said, that would enable the Minister to agree almost any sum of money with the Treasury and to put it in the Estimates.
That is not the right way to control expenditure. I suggest that we should use the Statutory Instrument which should be approved by the affirmative resolution of this House. It is on that point that I propose the amendment.

Mr. John Fraser: We put this clause in the Bill in order to have an expression of parliamentary approval for money spent on consumer advice services and price surveys. The amendment would place an intolerable burden on the House.
Since hundreds of small grants are made for consumer advice and price surveys, each one would require the affirmative approval of the House. That would be a waste of time.
Secondly—and I do not mean to be unkind—the amendment is defective. One cannot give approval to the draft of a grant. What one should give approval to is the draft of an order. For that reason I urge the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Dodsworth) to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Sainsbury: I briefly want to refer to amendment No. 74 which states that
Before making a grant to a person under this section, the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the information and advice disseminated by that person is accurate and of genuine usefulness to the users of goods and service.
I was glad to note that the Minister of State during the Standing Committee proceedings on 24th May recognised that it is not possible to compare value as between one commodity and another. Indeed, that is one of the difficulties and risks inherent in price surveys. I was sorry to find in the Department's Circular 1/77 regarding the collection and publication of local price information that no reference was made to the recognition that the Minister made in Committee, nor was there any reference at all to encouraging those concerned to check the accuracy of the information that they put out.
This is an area where misinformation can be more damaging and dangerous than no information at all. In other circumstances, I had expected a somewhat lengthy discussion on the sort of error that could creep into these surveys of which I have considerable documentation. Incidentally, the first one to which I wished to refer was a confusion between streaky bacon and second-cut back bacon. That is perhaps not an altogether difficult confusion to make, but it is certainly misleading to the consumer.

Mr. John Fraser: For anyone who used to cut up bacon as a kid, it is a mistake that the hon. Gentleman should not make at all.

Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that it should not be made. But clearly, apart from relative errors of fact and the confusion of commodities, many other mistakes are

made. The Minister should recognise this, and I hope that he will take note of the need to encourage accuracy in this service
I end by referring to my favourite error. It concerns instant coffee, which was shown as being 36p for 4 ozs. The available commodities in the shop were a 4-oz. jar of granules at 39p, a 4-oz. jar of powdered coffee at 38p and a 4-oz. refill pack at 35p. Here were three chances to get the figure right, and one would have thought that the Department would have done so. But it failed on all three counts.

Mr. John Fraser: The opposition of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) to the Bill has been titanic, and as the Titanic sinks, he is still in the ballroom listening to the orchestra playing. I give him the assurance that we have tried to ensure that all our price surveys are accurate. However, there may be mistakes. I am sorry that this is occasionally the case, but I also understand that there are sometimes mistakes on the shelves at Sainsbury. I apologise if we make mistakes, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall try to correct them.

Mr. Dodsworth: Although a procedure is used on particular occasions it does not necessarily have the authenticity of truth. It may be burdensome for a procedure to be followed but that does not mean that it is the wrong procedure. There may be difficulties in the drafting of the amendment. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 19

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, in page 23, line 39, at end insert:
'(5) On a date no earlier than 31st July 1978, the Secretary of State may by order provide for the amalgamation of the Price Commission with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but no order shall be made in pursuance of this subsection unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
The substantive words in the amendment are that the Secretary of State may


by order provide for the amalgamation of the Price Commission with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It would have been our wish to state that the Secretary of State "shall" amalgamate the two bodies but, as the House is aware, the present state of the law under the Fair Trading Act 1973 makes that legally impossible at present.
My plea throughout my speech will be that these statutory impediments to the amalgamation shall be removed as soon as possible with a view to clearing them out of the way and, of course, also to make other inquiries in the light of experience which may be necessary to pave the way for this amalgamation. That is a principle which I hope is supported by all sides of the House, not least because the amalgamation of the two bodies would serve to reduce the problems of bureaucracy and would make the whole set-up a great deal clearer to the baffled British commercial public. But that is only an incidental benefit.
The whole thrust of our purpose in urging this amalgamation is that Britain will have a powerful vehicle for a clear, positive and dynamic competition policy to run throughout commerce, industry and the professions. This will have three major weapons at its disposal. The first is powers and procedures for investigation, with due safeguards so that wherever monopoly, oligopoly, stagnation and restrictive practices occur, there will be the power for investigation. If the case is made out that there would have to be substantial and extremely sophisticated powers that some countries have already for removing monopoly elements or oligopolistic elements judged to be harmful, this would be at the very heart and main purpose of the new body.
But we have to be realistic and understand that curing profiteering, inefficiency, stagnation and restrictive practices in an anti-monopoly policy takes time. To establish the nature of the monopolistic situation and then to set upon a restructuring to get rid of it will not yield the necessary fruits for which the public is looking in a great hurry. So, in the meantime, it is necessary to have the immediate medicines available in the form of price controls and other checks of the monopoly practices. These are the three weapons—investigation, restructuring, and intermediate price checks and controls.
8.0 p.m.
The reason for wanting this vehicle is that we Liberals are among the many people of all parties who believe strongly in the operation of a market economy in many sectors of industrial life, though not in all, and in the importance of competition. But we recognise that, to get back to something approaching a reasonably practical degree of competition, there has to be an element of control which should be openly and democratically operated and subject to proper safeguards.
It was Sir William Beveridge, later Lord Beveridge, who, when sitting on these Benches, made it clear that if we were to pursue a policy of aiming at full employment, there would have to be not only control on pay but permanent controls operating against monopolistic practices. Since then, I am glad to say that a great deal has been learned throughout the developed world about ways of controlling monopolistic practices without the crude and violent methods of the early American anti-trust laws, which are not an example that we want to commend to the House.
The procedure would have to be very much more adapted to all the ramifications of modern industry and commerce. But essential to getting this done is the need to pave the way for the amalgamation of these two bodies. Therefore, at the end of this sunny afternoon, when Yorkshire is riding high at the top of the cricket championship table, what I seek from the Secretary of State, who attaches as great an importance as I do to these matters, is not a holus-bolus acceptance of this amendment but a real assurance that work will start at an early date on investigating the present legal impediments to combining these bodies and, equally important, to examining the possibilities for restructuring the Fair Trading Act so that a modernised and more dynamic Monopolies Commission can eventually take unto itself the Price Commission and we can have this powerful combined vehicle to establish a positive competition policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Without wanting to diminish the importance of the four or five amendments remaining for discussion, it must be said that it is a coincidence, though not an insignificant one,


that the main debates on Report began with a discussion of the future policy, the institutions and the powers, and ends with what I hope will be a major though brief discussion of basically the same subjects. Unfortunately, I was unable to take part in the first debate. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to clarify my own position in debating this amendment.
One of the reasons why it was necessary for the Government to vote against an amendment which might superficially appear to have had some similarity—Amendment No. 1—was, I fear, the confusion existing between the powers and the institutions embodied in this legislation. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was specific in his reference occasionally to powers and occasionally to institutions, but he differentiated clearly between the two, and I shall try to do the same.
I must make it clear that I accept the principles of what the hon. Member for Colne Valley described. To a large extent, I accept the philosophy on which they are based. The hon. Gentleman talked about the market economy. I am a supporter and a defender of a mixed economy. In that mixed economy, competition has an important part to play in improving the efficiency of the private sector and in improving the efficiency of part of the public sector where it is appropriate to organise public ownership in terms other than the great nationalised boards carrying out the duties of public utilities for the country.
In my more pretentious moments, one claim that I have made for the power to investigate in this Bill is that it helps to define one rule by which the mixed economy should run. It makes the mixed economy more socially acceptable and, to some extent, therefore, protects it. I agree with the hon. Member for Colne Valley about that.
We are equally in agreement that the powers to investigate should be permanent and, within the terms of the Bill, will be permanent. The confusion which arose when other hon. Members talked about the same subject when we discussed the first amendment was that it was never clear whether they accepted the existence of the principal power in this Bill to

investigate a price increase and, if it appeared socially unacceptable, to freeze that price.
As regards the institution, there is little difference between the hon. Member for Colne Valley, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and me. What we could not get from the hon. Lady today—and I do not propose to ask her again in other than a rhetorical sense now—was any explanation whether she agreed with the existence of the power. I believe that the power to investigate and freeze must be permanent.
But this is what I have to say about the institutions, and again it is very similar to what the hon. Member for Colne Valley said. Clearly, in the short term, in the year beginning on 1st August, the power to investigate and to freeze is and should be part of our policy designed to limit inflation. It is related to margin control and runs for a single year. There is a limit on its life, which must come to an end on the last day of July 1978. That is the initial phase of the policy. After that, increasingly, the powers to investigate specific price increases and occasionally to freeze them will become part of our competition policy.
The intellectual case for that is overwhelming. When we talk about "unreasonable prices", more often than not they are unreasonable because they are operated in a less than competitive situation. Therefore, the combination of the two is absolute and right.
Sooner or later—and I must tell the hon. Member for Colne Valley that it is more likely to be later than sooner, and I shall try to define "later", though not very precisely—the case for having all the anti-monopoly powers in a single institution will necessarily take on the characteristics of any of the present agencies. I do not regard the Monopolies and Mergers Commission as being the senior. I do not regard the Price Commission as being the senior. There are a number of powers of equal importance which should be amalgamated, and perhaps amalgamated into something like the Swedish Prices and Monopolies Court, if that is not to make too contentious a point.
Clearly, the institutions have a third feature—the Office of Fair Trading. It is not an institution in the sense in which


the two Commissions are. In one sense, it is an agent of the Government, and in one sense, it is the arm of one of the institutions. To put all those together under a single roof is a complicated but highly desirable process in the long term.
Working on the principles which the hon. Member for Colne Valley described, I hope that we shall work towards that. It would be foolish of me to make promises which cannot be kept. I do not think that that will be done in the next year of this Parliament. It may not be done in the life of this Parliament—in the next two or two and a half years. But we should move towards it so that eventually there is a single body which has the power to prevent mergers when they are socially undesirable, the power to break up monopolies when they are similarly found to be against the public interest, the power to take action against agreements for restraint of trade, and the power to attack what the hon. Member for Colne Valley rightly called the symptom of that condition, which is unreasonable price increases.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Colne Valley that we do more than support the principle which he described. I recall that when, rather eloquently, he spoke about this, some Opposition Members asked him what assurance he had that we would move towards what he described. I can give the hon. Gentleman what I hope is more than half an assurance. First, one of my main tasks in the months ahead is to look at possible reviews of Government competition policy. This will be done in two areas. First, I believe that the policy needs sharpening in all sorts of ways. That is no criticism of the institutions and the people in them who will join me in the exercise of making their work more effective, but a sharpening is necessary.
Secondly, I wish to deal with our obligations within the EEC on competition policy, and operating in those larger markets in one sense alters the economic parameters of competition monopoly.
I give an assurance that in the not-too-distant future I shall report on the progress that we have made on these matters. Anybody who thinks that I am backsliding in that assurance will have a public opportunity to discover whether I shall keep my promise to the hon. Member for Colne Valley.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to pursue the amendment. It contains certain technical deficiencies, but no criticism is intended when I say that. It is a formidable job to try to amalgamate the executives of the Office of Fair Trading, the Price Commission and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. It needs an Act in itself. There are severe reservations against allowing to Secretaries of State such rights, even with the agreement of the House. Some Secretaries of State like such powers, but those tendencies should be resisted.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is our genuine intention to move along the road he has described, because it is the logical road to take. I have promised to report to the House on how we are moving in these directions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that justifies, not simply for technical reasons but as a matter of principle, his seeking to withdraw the amendment. That would be the sensible course and would enable us to continue without the possible difficulties which the carrying of such an amendment would involve.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the broad base of competition policy outlined by the Secretary of State—a policy that holds the promise of all-party support as it unfolds, although there cannot be any commitment on those lines tonight—and as the right hon. Gentleman promised to keep the House informed, I hope that he will have the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House.
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20

FURTHER DUTIES TO HAVE REGARD TO SPECIFIED MATTERS AND SANCTION PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 24, line 3, at end insert
';but the Secretary of State may disregard the duty imposed on him by the preceding provisions of this subsection if he thinks it right to do so in connection with the sanction provisions'.

No. 51, in page 24, line 12, after ✶ sections ', insert—
' (cc) the function of determining whether to specifiy a day, and which day to specify, in pursuance of section 7(8)(b) of this Act'.—[Mr. Haltersley.]

Clause 21

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 24, line 24, leave out
'unless and until the order is subsequently varied' and insert 'before 1st October 1977'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Clause 22

INTERPRETATION, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AND REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 56, in page 26, line 33, at end insert—
'It is hereby declared that references in the preceding provisions of this subsection to an offence under this Act do not include an offence attributable to section 13(5) or 16 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Schedule 1

PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION THROUGH GROUPS OF MEMBERS

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 28, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

'(a) the function of carrying out and completing an investigation, and of holding any public inquiry required in connection with the investigation, which is conferred on the Commission by section 6 of this Act; or
(b) the function of examining a question which is conferred on the Commission by section 11(1) of this Act,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may also take Government Amendments Nos. 58 to 62.

Mr. John Fraser: I mention this amendment because it is an important concession to the Opposition.
The basic purpose of the amendments is to provide that where an investigation or examination has been remitted to a group of Commission members, the

group's findings will have no effect unless included in a report made by the Commission as a whole.
I promised that I would introduce amendments to this effect. They are important and I thought that an explanation should appear on the record.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I should not like this occasion to pass without acknowledging the concession which the Government have made—a concession which we regard as important for the effective working of the Commission. We accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 28, line 10, leave out 'those functions have' and insert 'the function has'.

No. 59, in page 28, line 11, leave out
'and subject to the following sub-paragraph'.

No. 60, in page 28, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (2).

No. 61, in page 28, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 41.

No. 62, in page 29, line 18, leave out 'functions required by a direction under paragraph 1(1)' and insert
'a function required by virtue'.—[Mr. Hattersley.]

Schedule 2

OTHER AMENDMENTS OF 1973 ACT

Mr. Richard Wainwright: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 31, line 32, at end insert
'and at the end of the definition of "charge" there shall be inserted the words "and also includes a charge for a holiday caravan licence ".
(1A) After subsection (1) of the said section 21 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) In the definition of 'charge' in subsection (1) above 'holiday caravan licence' means a licence to put on any land a caravan (within the meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as amended by the Caravan Sites Act 1968) for use for the purpose of holidays in a case where washing facilities or lavatories are provided or a supply of water, electricity or gas is provided, otherwise than by the licensee, for use in connection with the caravan; and any reference in section 6 of this Act to performing services shall be construed as including a reference to giving such a licence."'.


This amendment concerns holiday caravans. I emphasise that it does not relate to main homes which happen to be in mobile form because they are covered by the Mobile Homes Act 1975.
Holiday caravans up to the present have never been the subject of a firmly established and legally impregnable price control. People usually have only very short-term agreements. I am told that holiday caravan agreements with landlords are rarely of a duration of more than 12 months. Hitherto, such people have been at a considerable disadvantage if they have come up against a landlord who is somewhat grasping, or who has a motive in selling a new caravan on his site.
I am advised that in most choice coastal places and beauty spots the demand for holiday caravans greatly exceeds the supply of sites. There are all the elements of exposing such holiday-makers to considerable risks of extortionate charges, although there are many good and considerate landlords.
Where a caravan owner keeps his caravan on somebody else's land he is unlikely to have security of tenure. Furthermore, he is not protected against any increase in site fees. This may not matter quite so much if it is a light caravan which can easily be moved, but a heavier caravan may not be very easy to tow away. Indeed, I suspect that some caravans reach a condition where it would probably be disastrous to tow them away. They are basically holiday homes and for a large part of the year and often permanently they are kept on the special caravan sites which are the subject of this amendment.
The owners of such caravans are in a very weak position. When they are threatened with increased charges, it is difficult for them to move a heavy caravan to an alternative site. I emphasise that those people are given no protection under the Rent Act or from the Mobile Homes Act 1975. There are many complaints—a number of them directed at the Price Commission—about unreasonable increases in site charges, and I commend the idea that owners of holiday caravans who run the risk of such abuses should be given a degree of protection.
I wish to refer to one particular danger. Apparently, the landlords of caravan sites

are increasingly involved in the trade of selling new caravans. There is a great temptation for them to get rid of an. existing tenant on a site if that tenant is not disposed to buy a new caravan from that landlord. Landlords tend to bring in somebody who will buy a new caravan.
We believe that in view of these risky circumstances, there should be price control not over the rents, because that is not possible, but over the combined licence fees that are payable for the licence to park caravans, plus charges for water, electricity, drainage and other basic amenities. Where there is a licence fee of this kind it will, if this amendment is agreed to, be brought under the control of the Price Commission.
Having outlined the worthy purposes of the amendment, I commend it to the House.

Mr. Loyden: I am grateful to the lion. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) for moving this amendment. I know that both the Minister of State and the Secretary of State have given a great deal of attention to this problem in the recent past.
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question for discussion. A year or so ago hon. Members were inundated with letters from constituents who faced the situation outlined by the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Many working-class people in my constituency—and I am sure in the constituencies of other hon. Members—sought, many years ago, to live in a caravan on a site because that gave them an opportunity of getting away from, in many cases, a desperately bad environment to the countryside and because it enabled them to enjoy the countryside that they could not enjoy in their home environment. The Government should have paid attention to this long since.
These people, by the process that has been outlined by the hon. Member for Colne Valley, have been gradually deprived of this amenity which has become popular among those living in many urban conurbations. I fully support the argument that was put by the hon. Member for Colne Valley, although I know full well that much sympathy lies with the Minister and the Secretary of State on the matter.

Mr. Maclennan: On behalf of the Government I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). This has been an area of considerable legal obscurity and the matter has created great public concern. The Government and individual hon. Members have increasingly received complaints about increases in site charges for holiday caravans. It is right to ensure that the Price Commission's powers in this field are protected from challenge. It is important to make clear that the amendment does not seek to bring rents or leases under control but refers to the site charge, which covers the use of land and ancillary services. Such charges should be subject to the control of the Price Commission. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, and I recommend the House to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.23 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: At the conclusion of 28 hours of debate in the House I must start by paying tribute to all the services of the House which have dealt splendidly with what has proved to be this long sitting.
I also pay tribute to both Front Benches. Spokesmen on both Front Benches have not had any sleep at all since the proceedings started. I also pay tribute particularly to those of my hon. Friends who have served on the Front Bench on both an Mad hoc and a permament basis for the absolutely magnificent debates in which they have taken part. I am extremely grateful to them. I shall come back to that in a moment.
I want to deal at the outset with the falsehood that we have heard repeated ad nauseam by the Labour Party. It is that because we may be opposed to the Bill we are automatically in favour of higher prices. We are in favour of much lower prices than people have had to suffer under this Government during the last three years. No Government have ever had a worse record on prices than this one, and this Government will be

associated for ever in the minds of our people with high prices, whether they have introduced a Price Commission Bill or not.
We have had 28 hours of debate on the Bill. That is not because we have sought to wreck the Bill or to get rid of it in any way; it is because the Government cannot manage their own business. They were confronted with 37 amendments, more than half of which were moved by the Government, and 33 votes that we thought were necessary, yet they allocated only a day and a half for the Bill. Had we been given sufficient time to deal with all the important amendments we could have proceeded with the matter at far more advantageous hours than we did. I make no bones about that. We do not like the Bill, because we believe that it will do great harm. The only justification for such a Bill is in the context of a phase 3 pay policy. We do not believe that profiteering is, or has been, taking place and therefore we do not believe that the Bill is necessary.
Most of all, we fear that the only outcome of the Bill in the medium term will be far higher unemployment than we now have. That is the most important message. The Government will be doing serious and irresponsible damage to business and industry.

Mr. Heffer: We have sat here for a long time, so the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) can give way to me for a second. She must know that our people will take full note of the fact that when the Government bring in a Bill—and a rather modest one at that—to deal more effectively with prices than previous regulations have, the Tory Party has, for two days and a night, opposed it. It is quite clear—whether the hon. Member for Gloucester recognises it or not—that people will draw the necessary conclusion that the Tory Party is against controlling prices.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I have some sympathy for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wishing to make a point, because he has not spoken although he has attended the debate for a long night and day. However, he should remember that the Secretary of State admitted that if there had been no price or profit controls during the last


two or three years prices would not have been any higher than they now are.
I go around the country speaking to housewives, pensioners and young mothers, and find that they are devastated by prices. I speak to pensioners who have not seen meat for weeks and young housewives who say that their children have not seen fruit for months, yet not one of those people has ever told me that I should support the Price Commission Bill because it is important in fighting inflation.
We are concerned about the wide scope and the discretion given in the Bill, as well as the imprecise criteria and inadequate safeguards that it provides. None of our crucial amendments has been accepted. The Bill has a greater potential to do damage than was necessary. We shall not support a Bill that is unnecessary and unfair, containing safeguard levels that will, in many cases, lead to unreasonable and low profits.
We have not been dogmatic in our approach. We did not vote against Second Reading and we participated in a constructive Committee stage, which finished ahead of time. We have been patient and responsible during the debates of the last 24 hours. Here I should like to pay further tribute to my hon. Friends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I hope that we shall end up on a peaceful and sleepy note.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friends sincerely for their co-operation and support. We have now reached the point where our opposition to the Bill is outright because of its powers, its duration and its lack of adequate safeguards. We do not believe that this measure, any more than any of the Government's other counter-inflationary measures, will do any good. My fear is that it will combine the worst of all worlds for consumers, investment and employment, and I shall recom-

mend my hon. Friends to vote against it on Third Reading.

8.28 p.m.

Mrs. Bain: As the representative of the minority parties and one who served on the Standing Committee, I found this an interesting Bill with which to be involved. The Committee stage went through quicker than most of us had anticipated and it has been even more interesting to take part in the Report and Third Reading stages.
However, the chaos that has existed in the past 20 hours has done little to bring respect to the House. Surely what we have gone through in the past two days is an argument for the House to review its legislative processes. It is the firm conviction of my hon. Friends that an Assembly in Scotland would be able to deal with legislation in a much more effective way.
We were disappointed that the Government could not accept our positive and sensible amendments, particularly since they deal with employment, Scottish representation on the Price Commission, and regional imbalances in prices. We have played a responsible and sensible rôle on this legislation and I have recommended my hon. Friends to abstain on Third Reading.
We are taking this course because we do not oppose the basic concept of price control and the Bill is at least a step in this direction, and it is important, particularly at this time, when prices are such a contentious issue for so many families. However, we cannot give full-hearted support to a Bill that does not have the power to bring in all the controls that are necessary and that shows a lack of clarity in the powers that do exist.
Sectors of industry have also expressed reservations to my colleagues, who have been voting regularly in the past 28 hours, about the effects of the Bill on industry and, particularly, on employment.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Loyden: Everyone agrees that price control has become one of the most important elements in economic strategy. There has been an explosive increase in prices that has had a direct effect on the wealth-creating population in this country.
During the passage of the Bill my hon. Friends and I have attempted to introduce elements of positive price control. One of the amazing features of present price increases is the numerous and varied reasons given for them. In our lifetimes, hon. Members have heard of every type of climatic condition, including frost, drought and flood, but the sort of explosive price increases that we are seeing now have nothing to do with climatic conditions.
Housewives, househusbands and housekeepers generally are becoming cynical about the various reasons given for price increases. It is inevitable that in most cases the Government are blamed—even though this is generally unjustified. When the Government are held responsible for many price increases it behaves them to take effective measures to deal with these increases.
My hon. Friends and I wanted to see more positive measures related to the general economic strategy and linking price increases and inflation with planning agreements. We should also have liked to introduce a power for the Secretary of State to apply price freezes when he felt that they were necessary. Unless the Government get prices under control their whole economic strategy is in danger. That is why we have argued the case for our amendments. Unfortunately, they were not selected for debate on Report, but the Government have gone some way towards meeting the arguments that we deployed at earlier stages of the Bill.
We believe, although there was positive control only over wages and less control over dividends, that the economic parcel was a great contribution to the future economic strategy of the Government. Therefore, we hope that the measures in the Bill will result in the Government's gaining a greater degree of control over the prices situation.
We shall follow this Bill carefully to see whether these measures are effective in the way that the Government have outlined. If they are not effective, it will be upon the Government's shoulders to take alternative measures that will bring about a situation in which prices, which are now a major aspect of economic strategy, are brought under their control.
For those reasons we welcome the Bill, in the sense that there has been a move towards us. We do so in a cautious way, knowing full well that the test of the Bill will be to see whether it controls prices and begins to bring about equity between rigid control over wages and the price mechanism, over which there is no apparent control at present.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Hatlersley: This has been a long parliamentary day, but at the end of it the Price Commission Bill goes to the House of Lords in a form virtually identical to that in which it was submitted to this House. Margin control and dividend control remain for a single year rather than being annually renewable for three. That remains for the next crucial year of the anti-inflation battle.
Much more important, the central power of the Bill to investigate price increases and reduce prices which are not justified remains as a permanent feature of economic management in this country. I must remind the Opposition that, to the Government, that is right in itself. We believe in selective Government intervention in the economy. We believe that we achieved in the past two days, in the preceding Committee stage and on Second Reading, a substantial movement towards creating a right kind of relationship between Government, economic management and the economy as a whole.
I said on Report, and repeat now, that we have established criteria for justifiable price increases. The power to prevent those price increases, if they are not justified, is laid down in the additional rules for the management of the mixed economy. My party began to do that in 1948 with monopolies and mergers. To date we are continuing the process of economic management as a further step. We believe that to be right in itself.
I also believe in the practical and pragmatic advantages of the powers which I


believe will be confirmed on Third Reading. I believe that those powers are right for the economy as a whole. I know that they are right for the consumer. I believe they are right for industry.
No objective observer believes that the efficient and socially responsible firm in this country has anything to fear from the Price Commission. The fears that have been stimulated in some quarters of this House over the past 27 hours are based much more on political prejudice than on sound industrial judgment.
Much of that political prejudice has come from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim). We heard it again during her speech 10 minutes ago. The hon. Lady is extraordinarily predictable. Every speech she makes is in favour of getting prices down, but we are never told how that may be done. Every speech is always in favour of price control, but we are never told what is that price control. The facts of the situation—the record—is that for the past 27 hours she has led her party in solid and determined opposition to the price control policy of the Government. She opposed it line by line, as she said she would. She opposed it with a great deal of courage and determination. I pay credit and tribute to her determination.
I propose to repeat the reality of the past 27 hours over and over again in the next 18 months.
The hon. Lady said that there had been no filibustering. I have transcripts of speeches made by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker). I do not propose to read out what they said, not least because not a word of the three speeches they made between midnight and 2 o'clock was remotely related to the Bill or its passage.
We have had a factious, irrelevant Opposition, partly for doctrinal reasons but partly for another reason. On 10th June it was reported in The Times that Conservative circles had announced that they had decided either to delay the Bill to such an extent that it could not pass into law by 1st August or so to remove its powers that it would be virtually not

the Bill we introduced two months ago. For the past 27 hours the Conservatives have been striving to make that announcement come true. They have hopelessly failed. The Bill is substantially as it always was.
My final words about this exercise are these: I do not thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for what they have done over the past 27 hours; thanks would be impertinent. It is not something that they have done for me; they have done it because they believe in it, because they believe that it is right for the party, the Government, and the country.
What the Conservatives have achieved over the past 27 hours is to have Labour voting with solid enthusiasm for the Bill and demonstrating that those newspapers that have been saying during the past two weeks that we are no longer in control of the House of Commons are patently wrong.
The Labour Party has demonstrated over the past two days how we shall continue. We shall continue by our united support for measures that fulfil the hopes and aspirations of our party and meet the needs of the country. The Bill is such a measure, and I commend it to the House for Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 254. Noes 224.

[For Division List No. 180 see c. 1677]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. Is it not usual on these important occasions for the Leader of the Opposition and her entourage to be in position to explain why, in this marathon sitting, they have participated all along the line in seeking to let prices escalate even further than they are today? Would it be within your powers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to look round the corner and see whether the Leader of the Opposition is still hiding in the passageway?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but that is not a matter that concerns the Chair.

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you have any means of conjuring up the Leader of the Liberal Party to explain why his party has sustained the Government in office again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, either.

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.58 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As Al Jolson once said, "You ain't seen nothing yet." [An HON. MEMBER: "Black your face."] In my constituency that would not be a problem.
The Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) Order was made in 1976 and came into operation in March of that year. It applied, among others, to banks and other financial institutions, since the lending of money is regarded as the supply of a service for these purposes. Restrictive agreements between banks about the terms on which they would lend money thus became registerable under the legislation.
The 1976 Order had a quite unintended and generally unknown effect. It was never intended that normal agreements for the provision of loan finance, credit facilities, and so on, with no anti-competitive purpose, should be subject to the legislation, but it appears that they are. The fact is not generally known, and it was certainly never intended and would have far-reaching and deleterious effects if the anomaly were not cured.
That is the reason for the Bill. It contains some retrospective provisions, which cure the unintended defect under agreements which might have been created by the 1976 order. I believe that it has the support of financial institutions and of all parties.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): As the Minister has explained the Bill, I think that we might allow it to pass in record time. I hope that we may proceed with

all stages immediately, so that we can go about our lawful business.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 {Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

All (WORTHING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: We come at long last to the most important matter that we have to consider—the problems created in Worthing by the A27 proposals of the Department of Transport. I imagine that there has never been an occasion when the longest day of the year has coincided with the longest night of the year. There is also likely to be a photo-finish, since I am less than an hour from achieving the doubtful distinction of having waited longer for an Adjournment debate than anyone in the history of this House. I express my appreciation to the Minister, who shares that doubtful distinction with me, and to his officials.
The matter that I intend to discuss is of the greatest concern to my constituents, collectively—in terms of the environment of the town, which is particularly important because of its status as a holiday and retirement area—particularly, because of its many amenities, and individually, because many of my constituents may be affected by the proposals for a new or enlarged road. Therefore, I should like to summarise the history of the affair. During the five years or more that this matter has been of concern in my constituency, it has been difficult to avoid the impression that officials in the Department have not made successive Ministers fully aware of the history.
The matter first arose five years or more ago, when a proposal was made that


the A27 should be improved or should become a motorway. The expressions ''A27" and "M27" are in this sense interchangeable. As a result, a great deal of concern was expressed in the town. Indeed, it was so great that a petition containing almost 9,000 signatures was collected in a very short time. That petition read:
We, the residents of Worthing, strongly oppose the proposal to route the M27 motorway through this Borough.
Worthing, because it is a residential town and a holiday resort, depends for its existence on the amenities and environment it has built and preserved. It is particularly important, therefore, that in this instance the declared policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment to avoid routeing trunk roads through towns should be followed".
As a result of that I approached the then Ministers concerned and asked them to ensure that a feasibility study was carried out on an alternative route which would avoid the town completely, and that an opportunity should be given to people in the area to make a choice between that and a route that went through the town. I had a clear assurance on that matter. Therefore, I was greatly astonished to find that when the consultation documents were eventually put forward in an elaborate, glossy brochure and questionnaire, they contained no such route.
I wrote in the strongest terms to the then Minister pointing out that the Department clearly understood that there would be such a genuine choice and that, in my view, in the light of earlier undertakings, the failure to produce a feasibility study and to give my constituents a genuine choice could only be regarded as a gross breach of faith. I still take that view, because no such choice has yet been given. My constituents have been presented with Hobson's choice in this matter.
We now move on a stage further. As a result of the consultation exercise initiated by the Minister, a public meeting, initiated by the mayor of the day and attended by more than 1,000 people, took place at which again utmost concern was expressed about the proposal for the various routes which would go through the town.
Within a matter of weeks an even larger petition containing about 15,000

signatures was presented. That petition was to the effect that the residents of Worthing
strongly oppose the Department of the Environment's proposals for the future route of the A27(T) through the Borough of Worthing.
It repeated the point about the residential and holiday status of the town and its amenities and urged that
the declared policy of the Secretary of State for the Environment to avoid routeing trunk roads through towns, should be followed.
As the Secretary of State you said at a local government conference in Eastbourne that 'driving trunk roads through urban areas, if it ever made sense, does not make sense any more and it should stop'. We support this view.
Those were the terms of the petition that I presented to the Minister, but there has been considerable procrastination for a very long time.
I had the privilege of discussing the matter with the previous Minister for Transport before he was succeeded by the present Secretary of State. I am glad to say that he undertook to carry out a feasibility study of a route that went round the town. We still have not had that route put to public consultation. That is wrong. I believe that the matter should be rectified.
The Under-Secretary will know that I put down a Question for what would have been tomorrow had we ever reached it. That Question has fallen, so I do not know the details of the answers to the questionnaire. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the full results of that survey. Of course, it meant that if my constituents wanted a route which avoided the town, they had, so to speak, in American terminology, to put in a "write-in candidate". I would be interested to know to what extent that actually happened in the consultation exercise.
As a result of the public meeting and other consultations the Worthing Borough Council spelled out its objections to the routes, one of which is the one finally selected by the Minister. In a letter to the Secretary of State, the council said:
With regard to the routes indicated on the consultaive document, the Council totally rejects both the blue and red routes for the following reasons:

(a) Both routes require the demolition of a considerable amount of good quality property.


(b) In addition, a wide band of property would suffer considerable loss of visual amenity and exposure to traffic noise.
(c) It is considered most undesirable to locate a by-pass route passing through the urban area of Worthing, since the route would be used by traffic having no need to visit Worthing at all.
(d) The construction of a major route crossing the town would cause problems of severance, in particular, affecting the community of High Salvington and restricting access to the Downs.
(e) The construction of a major grade separated junction at Offington Corner with associated link roads would necessitate considerable property demolition, would severely affect the cemetery, and would be visually most obstrusive at this location."

The council added that the route would have a serious effect on the golf courses, which are amongst the finest in the country. These are tremendously weighty reasons why the Minister should not select the route that he has selected.
That being so, I should like to turn to the more specific points, as against the history of the matter. It seems to me that the delay, which has now come to an end, has, alas, been terminated by a wrong decision. I entirely share the view, which is almost unanimous in my constituency, that the Minister's decision to select the announced routes is incorrect.
In a letter of 31st May, the Minister selected the blue and orange routes. In that letter he put forward a number of reasons why he believed that that was the right pair of routes—one to the east and the other to the west.
I must stress as strongly as I can that there is a widespread feeling that the need for such a road has not been proven. The Minister's predecessor kindly provided me with the traffic forecasts for that route. I was astonished to find, in answer to a Question the other day, that the decision was based not on new forecasts but on old predictions that have been overtaken by events.
We have experienced a period of economic stagnation since these forecasts were made. They took no account of the structure of the area's population, or of the fact that many people in the area live on fixed incomes, are elderly, and do not drive cars. No account wase taken of those circumstances in the calculations on which the need for the road has been based.
The proposal is that the project should not be begun until the mid-1980s, or beyond, because of economic stagnation. The right decision would be to forget about it for at least five years and then to reappraise the situation in the light of circumstances at that time. If that cannot be done, the right decision must be to select the yellow route, which was not a proposal that was subsequently put forward by the council. It was proposed from the start as the route that would avoid the town completely.
I know that the argument is that that route would not divert as much traffic from the town. But the idea that heavy traffic and juggernauts, which cause so much trouble to residential areas, would come off the motorway and deliberately drive through Worthing to take a short cut, is inconsistent with the experience of traffic flows in other parts of the country.
I believe that the bypass solution is the right one. That is borne out not only by those in Worthing but, as I have found particularly in the last few days, by those who have concern for amenity otherwise, and the environmental groups, for example, that might have concern for the situation in respect of the South Downs. No one in my constituency, least of all myself, wishes to see the Downs in any way adversely affected, although there has been a great deal of change in traffic engineering, which in many ways enables for example, the new A24 to be far better, environmentally, going over the Downs than the old road was.
I believe that the points made by, for example, the Friends of the Earth group, who are among those concerned with environmental issues, and a number of other groups that have written to me even within the last few days, have emphasised the fact that the road that has been selected would mean an unnecessary and unjustifiable destruction of the Downs and a waste of public money, as the orange route that has been selected would duplicate the existing dual carriageway and cut off the town from access to the Downs, quite apart from wiping out large areas of golf courses which themselves are a great amenity.
I hope that the Minister will say this evening that he will give a genuine choice to my constituents and that he will reconsider the matter, even though I understand that that would mean that


the uncertainty would continue even longer, and there has already been a great deal of procrastination.
That having been said, there is some uncertainty anyway, because the Minister has not made a firm decision with regard to some other sectors of the route, as he pointed out in his latest Press statement. I believe, therefore, that the matter needs to be reappraised either by dropping it entirely for five years or so or, at any rate, by choosing a route that enables the town to be avoided completely.
In his latest letter announcing his decision, the Minister pointed out that we do not have the money. I believe that in a matter such as this, which affects so many people and the entire area, the right thing to do is to wait until one has sufficient money to do the job properly. What the Minister is really doing by his present decision is making the wrong long-run decision for short-run reasons. I do not believe that that is the right basis for decision-taking.
Perhaps I may finally mention one or two further points. It is very important that we should be clear about the situation in three respects. First, I hope that we can have an assurance about the results of the existing survey. Secondly, there is the question of blight. Given that the Minister has now announced a preferred route, may we be told that he is prepared to accept claims now from those who have considered their property to be blighted, or shall we have to wait for a later stage?
Finally, if the Minister decides to go ahead despite all the arguments, which are cogent and overwhelming, will he ensure that if a public inquiry is to be held—as it must be in these circumstances, if the Minister decides to go ahead and tries to press the wrong decision—that it will be held without delay? It would be quite intolerable if further procrastination over another period of years were to take place and leave the matter hanging in the air, as it is at present. If the Minister cannot make the right decision, we must at least be able to pursue the matter in public without delay.
I believe—I should like an assurance about this, too—not only that such a public inquiry should not be unduly

delayed but that the Minister will give people a choice, so that they can put forward the arguments for the route that avoids the town completely and dispute whether any change is needed at all. That should be possible at any public inquiry that is to take place
I hope that I am being over-pessimistic about the matter. We have both waited a long time for this debate. I hope that the Minister has been able to read his brief several times and to see the flaws that appeared in it initially, and that he will be able to reach a rational decision so that there will be no need for a public inquiry and we can get the right decision on a matter of tremendous concern.
I have not enumerated all the amenity societies and groups of people in my constituency who are concerned about this matter, but the borough council has consistently expressed the gravest concern, on the lines that I have sought to summarise in what has inevitably been a very short speech, coming at the end of a very long day. I hope that the reply from the Minister will contain answers to the specific points that I have made.

9.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am glad that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has secured the opportunity to debate the problems created by the proposal to improve the A27 trunk road through his constituency.
I know of the concern that the hon. Gentleman feels on behalf of his constituents about that proposal. I also know from bulky correspondence of the efforts that the hon. Gentleman has put into this matter over the years with successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for Transport. I can assure him that the problems that he has mentioned have also exercised the Department, and it is right that they should have a full airing. I shall try to be forthcoming in the short time available.
I am afraid that there is a basic dilemma. A degree of uncertainty is inevitable if we are to continue to take account of the public's views at the stage of development of proposals at which basic; decisions can be influenced, and yet this must cause anxiety to those people whose homes or businesses may be affected


by one or other of the alternatives. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to this. I think that it would perhaps be helpful if I give a fairly full account of the development of our proposals for Worthing so that I can cover both the problems of those who live in Worthing and the need to improve the A27.
The section of the trunk road with which we are concerned is the only significant length of the M27-A27 South Coast trunk road from west of Southampton to Lewes, east of Brighton, which is not already constructed to a high standard or scheduled for improvement. Through the residential area of North Worthing it is generally of single carriageway standard, and here traffic conditions are exacerbated by the fact that the trunk road and the A24 principal road share a common length for a short stretch.
In 1972 the Department commissioned consultants, to examine the future road needs in Worthing, and, if a need for improvement were established, to recommend feasible lines for the improvement of the trunk road. They concluded that the existing road will not provide an adequate route for the expected increase in traffic. Furthermore, their traffic surveys demonstrated that any route for the A27 which is to cater for the traffic using the trunk road and adequately to serve the needs of the town of Worthing would have to pass either through the built-up areas which extend from the coast to the lower slopes of the South Downs, or fairly close to the town and outside that area—which inevitably involves intrusion into the Downs themselves.
This conclusion arises from the fact that such a large proportion of traffic using this part of the A27 has an origin or destination in the town or its environs and so could not be attracted to use any bypass that is a substantial diversion away from the town, for example on the other side of the downs. The forecasts which underlie that survey remain those on which we base our decisions.
The Department accepted the consultants' broad conclusions, and these formed the basis of the public consultation exercise which took place in November 1975. I am sure that the hon. Member for Worthing will recall clearly the alternative routes presented for com-

ment. They included options avoiding the residential areas entirely, and options for improvement along the general line of the existing road, through the north of the town.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman met my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert), who was then Minister for Transport, in April 1976 to discuss the issues. The Department agreed at that meeting to ask its consultants to examine a further alternative route advocated by the borough council—the so-called yellow route—which ran almost entirely outside the Borough boundary.
The consultants did indeed make such a study, but they concluded that this route would attract much less traffic away from the existing trunk road. It would also have been more expensive to construct and in their opinion more environmentally damaging.
These views were conveyed in June 1976 to all the local authorities involved in the public consultation so that the Department could consider its views on all the possible routes put forward, including this further alternative. It was not until December 1976 that the Department received all the local authorities' views. The last, and one of the most important responses—that from the local highway authority—was unfortunately of little assistance in deciding on the best option to pursue further, since the county council felt unable to express any preference between the options for the western end of the town, as opposed to the borough council which has strong views indeed.
As the hon. Member is aware, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 1st June his decision following the consultation. It covered conclusions taken only after the most careful consideration. We know that whatever decision was made, because of the basic dilemmas involved, it would be unwelcome to someone. It could not have been otherwise, bearing in mind the conflicting factors which had been evident in the responses to the consultation. But I cannot accept that the route selected ignores the wishes of the public, as has been suggested.
The public's response was an important consideration in determining the choice of route and was in particular the factor which led my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to decide that his choice


of route for the western half of the improvement should be qualified and that there should be a further round of public consultations about the standard of road for part of this section of the route.
The hon. Member will understand that in a sense these are not referenda—one is taking a qualitative view as well as a quantitative one.
We ignored the eastern routes and thought of the western routes. The green route was considered the best choice by 39 per cent, of residents; the blue route was advocated by 27 per cent; and the red route was considered the best choice by 14 per cent. This brings out the dilemma between towns and Downs, if I may put it like that. The green route, which was at the top of the best choices, was also at the top of the worst choices. It was considered the worst choice by 36 per cent. The blue route was considered the worst choice by 27 per cent., and the red route was thought to be the worst choice by 23 per cent. Of the eastern routes, the orange route was considered the best by 57 per cent, and the purple route by 23 per cent. Obviously there was very little controversy here compared with the western route.
These are the results of the consultation exercise. I do not think that one could reasonably say that the public's wishes have been ignored in this matter, and clearly we face a choice between the green, which was considered the best and the worse, and the blue, which was thought to be the second best and the second worst.
Public response was an important consideration in determining the choice of route and led the Secretary of State to decide that the choice for the western route should be qualified and that further public consultation about the standard of the road should be sought. People were offered a "do nothing" solution, which obviously has attractions for the hon. Member, and a more elaborate solution.
We are at the earliest stage for this road scheme. The non-statutory consultation process which has been conducted is additional to the various safeguards to which the people concerned are entitled by law. The aim so far has been to decide on an option that can be examined in detail. As soon as the pre-

ferred route can be worked up to the point where it can be clearly defined, a draft order will be published. If there are objections at that stage, an inquiry may be held, and only after that will a decision be made whether to proceed. Thus the present position is that there is prima facie evidence that a problem will arise and that detailed planning should be undertaken as to how it might be obviated.
That is the best statement that I can make on the present position. We shall proceed as fast as we can on the public inquiry. I understand that the Government's consultation process faced a genuine dilemma in the degree of consultation with those who will suffer blight—and this is a major cause for concern for the hon. Member. We shall proceed as fast as we can on this matter.
The hon. Member asked about the "write-in" views. There was a considerable "write-in" vote for no route at all. I have not the precise figures for a yellow route or the more northerly route, but they were not significant.
The problem of blight was a cause of major concern to the hon. Gentleman. We shall never get a preferred route for the eastern section from those whose homes are physically affected by the route. They will be in a position to serve blight notices on the Department and the normal statutory procedures will arise in the case of the sections of the road where we have decided to have further public consultation and to give further opportunity for views to be aired. There will inevitably be further delay, but this is an unavoidable consequence of giving people further consultation. A discretionary power remains available to the Department and we shall consider sympathetically any particular cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The statutory blight procedure will operate only in the case of the preferred route that was announced in the Press statement last week.

Mr. Higgins: Will it operate from now?

Mr. Horam: Yes, from now. The blight problem has been considerably diminished by the removal of the threat from properties on alternative routes that have been discarded. In addition, those living on the parts of the preferred route


in which there will not be more detailed discussions can serve blight notices on my Department in respect of the acquisition of their properties along the route, provided that they meet the statutory requirement of being a physical entity—house and garden—on the course of the preferred route.
If any individual is dissatisfied with the price paid for his property and assessed by the District Valuer, he may go to the Lands Tribunal on a right of appeal. That is a further safeguard.
I have tried to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked as well as I can in the short time available to me. We are still at a fairly early stage in the planning of this major road and we have to go through all the statutory

processes, including a full public inquiry. I have not the slightest doubt that there will be a public inquiry—it would be amazing if there were not. All the basic questions about traffic forecasts can be considered there and we shall consider them as we bring the project up to the public inquiry. In addition, the whole case for the road can be raised at the inquiry.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes to Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening.

PRICE COMMISSION BILL

Division List No. 160 [See c. 1251]


Division No. 160]
AYES
(11.4 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhew, Victor
Mudd, David


Alison, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair
Neave, Airey


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gorst, John
Nelson, Anthony


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neubert, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Newton, Tony


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Nott, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Griffiths, Eldon
Onslow, Cranley


Baker, Kenneth
Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hall, Sir John
Page, Richard (Workington)


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Parkinson, Cecil


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Biffen, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Perclval, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hannam, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Prior, Rt Hon James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bottomley, Peter
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raison Timothy


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Henderson, Douglas
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Heseltine, Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brittan Leon
Hicks, Robert
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C
Higgins, Terence L..
Renton Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Brooke, Petre
Hodgson, Robin
Rhodes James, R.


Brotherton, Micheal
Holland, Philip
Rhys williams, Sir Brandon


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Budgen, Nick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bulmer Esmond
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Carlisle, Mark
Irving Charles (Cheltenham)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carson, John




Chalker Mrs Lynda
James David
Rost, peter(SE Derbyshire)


Churchill, W.S.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, Alan(Plymouth, Sutton)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Wlliam (Croydon S)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony,
Shelton, William (streatham)


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Sou|h Dorsel)
Shepherd, Colin


Cockcroft, john
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sims, Roger


Cormack, Patrick
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Costain, A.P.




Crawford, Douglas
Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, T. H. H.


Crouch David
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Crowder, F. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Davies, rt hon J.(Knutsford)
Lsester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Lyod, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Loveridge, John
Sproat, Iain


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce Richard
Stainton, Keith


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
MacCormick, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunlop, John
McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dykes, Hugh
Macgregor, John 
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Eden Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew Jemes
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas(Pembroke)
Macmillian Rt Hon M (Farnham)
Stokes, John




Tapsell, peter


Elliolt, Sir William
McNair-Wiison, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Emery Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, R.(Croydon NW)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Madel, David
Tebbit, Noman


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Temple Morris, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Trotter Neville


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
van Straubenzee W. R.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Vaughan Dr Gerard


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Viggers Peter


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Wakeham John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Molyneaux, James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Montgomery, Fergus
Watt, Hamish


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Weatherill, Bernard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wells, John







Welsh, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wiggin, Jerry
Wood. Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Carol Mather and


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. John Stradling Thomas


Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Younger, Hon George





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Allaun, Frank
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freud, Clement
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mendelson, John


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mikardo, Ian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
George, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkinson, Norman
Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ginsburg, David
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Golding, John
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Bates, Alt
Gould, Bryan
Molloy, William


Bean, R. E.
Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Bennett, Andrew (Slockport N)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Bidwell, Sydney
Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Newens, Stanley


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Boardman, H.
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden Eric


Boolhroyd, Miss Betty
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
O'Halloran Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Heffer, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooson, Emlyn
Ovenden John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Padley Walter


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Palmer Arthur


Buchan, Norman
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pardoe, John


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Park George


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les
Pavitt Laurie


Campbell, Ian




Canavan, Dennis.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Pendry, Tom


Cant, R.B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Penhaligon, David


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Perry, Ernest


Carter Ray
Hunter, Adam
Prescott, John


Carter-Jones Lewis
lrving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, William (Rugby)


Carwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Radice, Giles


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Coleman, Donald
Jonn, Brynmor
Robinson, Geoffrey


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Concannon Ms MaUreen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Conlan Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Corbertt, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Rooker, J. W.


Cowans Harry
Jones, Barry (EaSt Flint)
Rose, Paul B.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones,' Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cronin, John
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kelly, Richard
Rowlands, Ted


Crver Bob
Kerr,Russell
Ryman, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kinnock, Neil
Sedgemore, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Selby, Harry


Davies Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Davies Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies Ifor (Gower)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Short, Mrs RenéSe (Wolv NE)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Silverman, Julius


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Snape, Peter


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stallard, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Stoddart, David


Ennals, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stott, Roger


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Thomas, Ron (Brlsol NW)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Tierney, Sydney







Tinn, James
Weltzman, David
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Torney, Tom
Wellbeloved, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Tuck, Raphael
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Woodall, Alec


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
White, James (Pollok)
Woof, Robert


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Whitlock, William
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Young, David (Bolton E)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)



Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mr.James Hamilton and


Watkins, David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Mr. Joseph Harper


Weetch, Ken
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Division List No. 161 [See c. 1269]


Division No. 161]
AYES
[12.11 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Alison, Michael
Goodhart, Philip
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Arnold, Tom
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)
Goodlad, Alastalr
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Awdry, Daniel
Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Baker, Kenneth
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Monro, Hector


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Montgomery, Fergus


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Griffiths, Eldon
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Benyon, W.
Grist, Ian
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Biffen, John
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Blggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Newton, Tony


Bowden A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Harvie Anderson. Rt Hon Miss
Nott, John


Boyson Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


BRAINE, SIR BERNARD
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brittan, Leon
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brooke, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Brotherton Michael
Higgins, Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Percival, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, PHillip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Burden, F.A.




Butler Adam (Bosworth)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Raison, Timothy


cartisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Chalker' Mrs Lvnda
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chu chill, W. S.
Hurd, Dou9|as
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


clark Alan (plymouth, Sutton)
Hutchiston, Micheal Clark
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jame8, David
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Clegg Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhodes James, R.


Cockcroft John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridley, Hon Nlcholas


Cope, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Cormack Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crowder, F. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyrn (Conway)


Davles, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Rossi, Hu9h (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sainsbury, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Latham, Michael (Melton)
st. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunlop, John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Colin


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Elliott, Sir William
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
McCrlndle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashffeld)


Fell, Anthony
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacKay, Andrew James
Spence, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fookes, Miss Janel
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, lain


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter







Taylor, R. (croydon NW)
Vaughan, Dr Gerrard
Winterton, Nichlos


Taylor, Teddy(Cathcart)
Viggers, Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Tebbit, Norman
Wakeham, John
Young, sir G. (Ealing, Action)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Alder, David (Clitheroe)
Younger, Hon George


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)



Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon s)
Walter, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Townsend Cyril D
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Trott er, Naville
Wells, John
Mr. Caro. Mather


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry





NOES


Abse, Leo
Fich, Alan (wigan)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin
McE hone, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher Ted (Darlington)
MacFarqunar, Roderick


Archer, RtHon peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Armstrong, Ernest
Ford, Ben
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Maclennan, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'Wd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Freeson, Reginald
Madden, Max


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Cement
Magee,Brayan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Garrett, John(Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bates, Alf
Garrett, W.E.(Wallsend)
Marks, Kenneth


Beith, A. J.
George, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Ginsburg, David
Maynard, Miss Joan


BldwelI, Sydney
Golding, John
Meacher, Michael


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Gould, Bryan
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Graham, Ted
Mendelson, John


Boardman H.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mikardo, Ian


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Boyden James (Bish Auck)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Bradley Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersiey, Rt Hon Roy
Molloy, William


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hatton, Frank
Moonman, Eric


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moyle, Roland


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Campbell, Ian
Henderson, Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Canavan, Dennis
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Hooson, Emlyn
Noble, Mike


Carmlchael, Nell
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Carson, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Ogden, Eric


Carter, Ray
Howells, Geralnt (Cardigan)
O'Halloran, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis




Cartwright, John
Hoyle Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hucktfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes Roy (Newport)
Pardoe, John


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurie



Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pendry, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Penhaligon, David


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Corbett, Robin
Jeger Mrs Lena
Prescott, John


Cowans, Harry
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jchn Brynnmor
Radice, Giles


Crawford, Douglas




Cronin, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Crowther, Stan (Rothernam)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cryer, Bob
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanvon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)
Jones Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, Rt Hon Witliam (Stockton)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Rocker, J. W.


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Lambie David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Dormand, J. D.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas-Mann, Bruce




Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (lltord South)


Eadie, Alex
Leyer, R, Hom Har0ld
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Durwich)


English, Micheal
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander (york)
Small, William


Evans. loan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cryil (Rochdale)


Ewing, Harry (Strling)
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacCormick, Lain
Snape, Peter







Spearing, Nigel
Tierney, Sydney
Wigley, Dafydd


Spriggs, Leslie
Tinn, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wainwrighl, Richard (Colne V)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Sloddarl, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Stott, Roger
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Watkins, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Swain, Thomas
Watt, Hamish
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Weetch, Ken
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Weitzman, David
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thomas, Ron (Brisol NW)
Welsh, Andrew



Thompson, George
White, Frank R. (Bury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Joseph Harper

Division List No. 162 [See c. 1310]


Division No. 162]
AYES
[2.37 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Eadle, Alex
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Allaun, Frank
Edge, Geoff
Kinnock, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lambie, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Armstrong, Ernest
Ennals, David
Lamond, James


Ashton, Joe
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Leadbltter, Ted


Atkinson, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lee, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bates, Alf
Flannery, Martin
Lipton, Marcus


Bean, R. E.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lomas, Kenneth


Beith. A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ford, Ben
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport M)
Forrester, John
Lyons Edward (Bradford W)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McDonald Dr Oonagh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank


Boardman H.
Freud, Clement
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MeGuIre Michael (Ince)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, W. E.l(Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
George, Bruce
Mackintosh John p.


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David
McMillan Tom (Glasgow C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John
Madden Max


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Could, Bryan
Maagee Bryan


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. w.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marks, Kenneth


Campbell, Ian
Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr Edmund (goole)


Canavan, Dennis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cant, R. B.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Maynard, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Meacher, Micheal


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy



Cartwright, John
Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, John


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hayman, Mrs Helens
Mikardo,Ian


Clemitson, Ivor
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Klibrlde)


Cohen, Stanley
Henderson, Douglas
Miller, Mrs MiIIie(llford N)


Coleman, Donald
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Horam, John
Molloy, William


Concannon, J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Moonman, Eric


Conian, Bernard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Corbett, Robin
Huckfleld, Les
Moyle, Roland


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cronin, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Newens, Stanley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hunter, Adam
Noble, Mike


Cryer, Bob
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Oakes, Gordon


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Ogden, Eric


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
O'Halloran, Michael


Davidson, Arthur
Janner, Grevllle
Orbach, Maurice


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Ovenden, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
John, Brynmor
Park, George


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom


Dempsey, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Penhaligon, David


Doig, Peter
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Prescott, John


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Radlce, Giles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dunn, James A.
Kelley, Richard
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Russell
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)






Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Spriggs, Leslie
Weetch, Ken


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Wellbeloved, James


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Stoddart, David
Welsh, Andrew


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Stott, Roger
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Rooker, J. W.
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
White, James (Pollok)


Rose, Paul B.
Swain, Thomas
Whitlock, William


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Willey. Rt Hon Frederick


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Ron (Brisol NW)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Sandelson, Neville
Thompson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sedgemore, Brian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Selby, Harry
Tierney, Sydney
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Tinn, James
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woodall, Alec


Silkirt, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Woof, Robert


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Small, William
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Ward, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Watkins, David
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Snape, Peter
Watt. Hamlsh
Mr. Ted Graham


Spearing, Nigel






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Alison, Michael
Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Arnold, Tom
Fowler, Norman (Sutlon C'f'd)
Mactarlane, Neil


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fox, Marcus
MacGregor, John


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
MacKay, Andrew James


Baker, Kenneth
Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Bell, Ronald
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Benyon, W.
Gllmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Biffen, John
Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhew, Victor
Mates, Michael


Biaker, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair
Mather, Carol


Body, Richard
Gorst, John
Maude, Angus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
GOW, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mawby, Ray


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gray, Hamish
Mayhew Patrick


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Griffiths, Eldon
Meyer Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brittan, Leon
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hall, Sir John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brooke, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moate Roger


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro Hector


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Buck Antony
Hastings, Stephen
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bulter, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Butler Adam (Bosworth)
Heseltine, Michael
Mudd, David


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Higgins, Terence L.
Neave, Airey


Churchill W.S.
Hodgson, Robin
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Holland, Philip
Neubert, Michael


Clark William (Croydon S)
Hordern, Peter
Newton, Tony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Nott, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cooke Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cormack, Patrick
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pardoe, John


Costain, A. P.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parkinson, Cecil


Crouch, David
James, David
Pattie Geoffrey


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Percival, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Drayson, Burnaby
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rathbone, Tim


du Cann Rt Hon Edward
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Durant Tony
Knox, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Rhodes James, R.


Emery, Peter
Lawson, Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridsdale, Julian


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey







Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spence, John
Trotter, Neville


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Sproat, lain
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stalnton, Keith
Viggers, Peter


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wakeham, John


Scott, Nicholas
Stanley, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Walters, Dennis


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Weatherill, Bernard


Shepherd, Colin
Stokes, John
Wells, John


Shersby, Michael
Stradllng Thomas, J.
Wiggin, Jerry


Silvester, Fred
Tapsell, Peter
Wintenon, Nicholas


Sims, Roger
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Sinclair, Sir George
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.
Temple-Morris, Peter



Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr. Michael Roberts and


Speed, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.
Sir George Young

Division List No. 163 [See c. 1340]


Division No. 1631
AYES
14.30 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lamond, James


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Leslor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Llpton, Marcus


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ford, Ben
McCartney, Hugh


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
MacCormick, lain


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McElhone, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freud, Clement
McGuIre, Michael (Ince)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H.
George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan


Bradley, Tom
Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Graham, Ted
Marshall Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buchan, Norman
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mavnard Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mandelson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Prison, Rt Hon Walter
Mikardo, lan


Cant, R. B.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Nell
Hatlersley, Rt Hon Roy
Millian, Rt Hon Bruce


Cartwright, John
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Molloy, William


Clemitson, Ivor
Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Henderson,Douglas
Moonman, Eric


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Morris, charles R.(Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Moyle, Roland


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Concannon, J. D.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Conlan, Bernard
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Newens, Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Huckfield, Les
Noble, Mike


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O' Halloran, Michael


Cryer, Bob
Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Ovenden John


Davidson, Arthur
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Janner, Greville
Pardoe, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Park, George


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
John, Brynmor
Pendry, Tom


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhallgon, David


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dormand, J. D.
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rees, Rt Kon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunn, James A.
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunnett, Jack
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Eadie, Alex
Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey


Edge, Geoff
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roderick, Caerwyn


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kinnock, Nell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


English, Michael
Lambie, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Ennals, David
Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W







Rose, Paul B.
Stoddart, David
Wetlbeloved, James


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Swain, Thomas
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Rowlands, Ted
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, James (Pollok)


Ryman, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Whitlock, William


Sandelson, Nevitte
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sedgemore, Brian
Thompson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Selby, Harry
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tinn, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silverman, Julius
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Skinner, Dennis
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Woodall, Alec


Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wool, Robert


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Ward, Michael
Young, David (Bolton E)


Snape, Peter
Watkins, David



Spearing, Nigel
Watt, Hamish
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Spriggs, Leslie
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Alf Bates and


Stallard, A. W.
Weitzman, David
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew James


Altken, Jonathan
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Allson, Michael
Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Arnold, Tom
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Awdry, Daniel
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mates, Michael


Baker, Kenneth
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maude, Angus


Bell, Ronald
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Benyon, W.
Goodhart, Philip
Mayhew, Patrick


Berry, Hon Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bitten, John
Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gorst, John
Mills, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mitcheil, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moate, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamlsh
Monro, Hector


Bottomley, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grylls, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brittan, Leon
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neave, Airey


Brooke, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Newton, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hastings, Stephen
Nott, John


Buck, Antony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Burmer, Esmond
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Carlisle, Mark
Hodgson, Robin
Pattie, Geoffrey


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Raison, Timothy


Clegg, Walter
Hurd, Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Cockcroft, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cope, John
James, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes James, R.


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Davles, Rt Hon J. (Knutslord)
Kimball, Marcus
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Maicolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David
Rippon, Dt Hon Geoffrey


Drayson, Burnaby
Lamont Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael (Melton)
ROSSL, HUGH (HORNSEY)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Leadbitter, Ted
Salnsbury, Tim


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fell, Anthony
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shepherd, Colin


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Macfarlane, Nell
Silvester, Fred


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger







Sinclair, Sir George
Stokes, John
Wilder, David (Clitheroe)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Stradling Thomas, J.
Walters, Dennis


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Tapsell, Peter
Weatherlll, Bernard


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Weils, John


Speed, Keith
Tebbit, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Spence, John
Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Sproat, Iain
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Stainton, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D.
Younger, Hon George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trotter, Neville



Stanley, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wakeham, John
Mr. Peter Morrison.

Division List No. 164 [See c. 1340]


Division No. 164]
AYES
[4.44 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter


Alison, Michael
Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Arnold, Tom
Goodlad, Alastalr
Moate, Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gorst, John
Monro, Hector


Awdry, Daniel
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus


Baker, Kenneth
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Sell, Ronald
Gray, Hamish
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Benyon, W.
Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Biffen, John
Hall, Sir John
Neave, Airey


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nelson, Anthony


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neubert, Michael


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John
Nott, John


Bottomley, Peter
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Onslow, Cranley


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hastings, Stephen
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Cecil


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine, Michael
Pattie, Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hicks, Robert
Percival, Ian


Brooke, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brotherton, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Buck, Antony
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rathbone, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hurd, Douglas
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Rhodes James, R.


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcoim


Cockcroft, John
Kimball, Marcus
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Roberts Wyn (Conway)


Cope, John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David
Rost Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Costain, A. P.
Lamont, Norman
Salisbury Tim


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crowder, F. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Scott, Nicholas


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Le Marchant, Spencer
Shepherd, Colin


Drayson, Burnaby
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shersby, Michael


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Fred


Durant, Tony
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Luce, Richard
Sinclair, Sir George


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Elliott, Sir William
Macfariane, Neil
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacKay, Andrew James
Spence, John


Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, lain


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stainton, Keith


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fox, Marcus
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Norman







Temple-Morris, Peter
Wakeham, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walters, Dennis
Younger, Hon George


Townsend, Cyril D.
Weatherill, Bernard



Trotter, Neville
Wells, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wiggin, Jerry
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Michael Roberts




NOES


Abse, Leo
Freud, Clement
Mikardo, Ian


Allaun, Frank
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
George, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr John
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ginsburg, David
Molloy, William


Atkinson, Norman
Golding, John
Moonman, Eric


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland


Bates, All
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grocott, Bruce
Newens, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halioran, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ovenden, John


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kooley, Frank
Park, George


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Kowell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Powells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Penhaligon, David


Campbell, Ian
Koyle, Doug (Nelson)
Prescott, John


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfield, Les
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Radice, Giles


carmichael, Neit
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)


Carter-Jones, Lewls
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cartwright, John
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Irving. Rt Hon S. (Dartfort)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Clemitson, Ivor
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Robinson. Geoftrey


Cocks, Rt. Hon Michael
Jackson. Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cohen, Stanley
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Coleman, Donald
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
John, Brynmor
Rooker, J.W.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rose Paul B.


Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cowans, Harry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones. Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Crowwther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sandelson., Neville


Cryer, Bob
Jones. Dan (Burnley)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kaufman, Gerald
Selby, Harry


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kelly, Richard
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kilroy-Silk, robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon S.D. (Dulwich)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamble, David
Silverman, Julius


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lamond, James
Small, William


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Smith Johb (N Lanarkshire)


Dormand, J D
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Snape, Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Duffy A. E. P
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Stallard, A. W.


Dunnett Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Eadie, Alex
Lyons Edward (Bradford W)
Stewarl, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacCormick, lain
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Swain, Thomas


Ennals, David
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacKcnzie, Rt Kon Gregor
Thompson, George


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Maclennan, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tierney, Sydney


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mailalieu, J. P. W.
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ford, Ben
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwrighl, Edwin (Dearne V)


Forrester, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwrlght, Richard (Colne V)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Harold (Doncpster)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John
Ward, Michael







Watkins, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Woof, Robert


Weetch, Ken
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wriggleswofth, Ian


Weitzman, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)



Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. Joseph Harper and


White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Joseph Ashton


Whitlock, William

Division List No. 165 [See c. 1386]


Division No. 165]
AYES
[7.30 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Allaun, Frank
Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Anderson, Donald
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Archer. Rt Hon peter
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mendelson, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)


Atkinson, Norman
George, Bruce
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Moonman, Eric


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Keywood)
Gould, Bryan
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Moyle, Roland


Bean, R. E.
Grant, George (Morpelh)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grocott Bruce
Newens, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noble, Mike


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Gordon


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Ogden, Eric


Boardman, H.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hatton, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ovenden, John


Bradely, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Henderson, Douglas
Park George


Brown, Hugh D.(Provan)
Hooley, Frank
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Prescott, John


Campbell, Ian
Hucklleld, Les
Price, William (Rugby)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Radice, Giles


Cant, R.B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Carmichael, Nell
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Robert, Gwilym (Cannock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Rooker, J. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rose, Paul B.


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston walter(Derby)
Ross, Stephen (lsie of wight)


Corbett, Robin
Johnston, Russell(inverness)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kllmarnock)


Cowans, Harry
Jones Alec (Rhondda)
Ryman, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jones Barry (East Flint)
sedgernore, Brian


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones Dan (Burnely)
Selby, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Gerald
Shaw, Arnold (lford)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kelley Richard
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renee(WolvNE)


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sllkin., Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lamble, David
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Small William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Dempsey, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)
Spearing Nigel


Dolg, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough) 
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Llpton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart David


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Rodger


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summersklll, Hon Dr Shirley


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


English, Michael
MeElhone, Frank
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, George


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Tierney, Sydney


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Torney, Tom


Fool, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.







Wainwrighl, Edwin (Dearne V)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
White, James (Pollok)
Woodall, Alec


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Ward, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth. Ian


Watkins, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Watt, Hamish
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)



Weetch, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrlngton)
Mr, Donald Coleman and


Wellbeloved, James
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. Joseph Harper


Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Goodhew, Victor
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Aitken, Jonathan
Goodlad, Alaslair
Morrison. Charles (Devizes)


Alison, Michael
Gorst, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Arnold, Tom
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Bell, Ronald
Grylls, Michael
Newton, Tony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Faveham)
Hall, Sir John
Oppenhelm, Mrs Sally


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, John
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattle, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Hannam, John
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bottomley, Peter
Havers, R Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Heseltine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kicks, Robert
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brittan, Leon
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hodgson, Robin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brooke, Peter
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Brotherton, Michael
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhodes James, R.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buck, Antony
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bulmer, Esmond
Hurd, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rlfkind, Malcolm


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Churchill, W. S.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sainsbury, Tim


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Scott, Nicholas


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cockcroft, John
Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Cope, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shersby Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Silvester, Fred


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Sims Roger


Crouch, David
Lawson, Nigel
Sinclair, Sir George


Crowder, F. P.
Le Marchant, Spencer
Skeet, T. H. H.


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
Luce, Richard
Spence, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McCrindle, Robert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Nell
Sproat, lain


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John
Stalnton, Keith


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanley, John


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Forman, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Trotter, Neville


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Mills, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Moafe, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Monro, Hector
Wakeham, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus
Walder, David (Clltheroe)


Goodhart, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walters, Dennis







Weatherlll, Bernard
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John
Young, Sir G. (Baling, Acton)
MR. Anthony Berry and


Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Hon George
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Winterton, Nicholas

Division List No. 166 [See c. 1386]


Division No. 166]
AYES
[7.45 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gray, Hamlsh
Parkinson, Cecil


Alison, Michael
Grist, Ian
Paltie, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Grylls, Michael
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)
Hall, Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Awdry, Daniel
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Prior, Rt Hon James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Baker, Kenneth
Hampson, Dr Keith
Raison, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Ralhbone, Tim


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Farenam)
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bitten, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Biggs-Davison, John
Heseltine, Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Blaker, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, R.


Body, Richard
Higgins, Terence L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hodgson, Robin
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Holland, Philip
Rlddale, Julian


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hordern, Peter
Rifkind, Malcolm


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hurd, Douglas
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Brooke, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Salnsbury, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Buck, Antony
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Bulmer, Esmond
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shepherd, Colin


Burden, F. A.
Kimball, Marcus
Shersby, Michael


Bulter, F. A.
King, Elelyn (South Dorest)
Silvester, Fred


Carlisle, Mark
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Sims, Roger


Churchill, W. S
Knox, David
Sinclair, sir George


Clark, Alan(Plymouth, Sutton)
Lamont, Norman
skeet, T. H. H.


Clark William(Croydon S)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Smith, Dudely (Warwick)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Latham, Micheal (Melton)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Speed, Kelth


Cockcroft, John
Lawson, Nigel
Spence, John


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Merchant, Spancer
Spicer, Micheal (S Worcester) 


Cope, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sproat, Iain


Cormack, Patrick
Lewis, kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Costain, A. P.
Loveridge, John
Stanley John


Couch, David
Luce, Richard
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Crowder, F. P.
MacCormick, lain
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Stokas, John


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew James
Tapsell, Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Macmlllan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Tebblt, Norman


Durant, Tony
McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Temple-Morris Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Thompson George


Elliott, Sir William
Mather, Carol
Townsond, Cyril D


Emery, Peter
Maude, Angus
Trotter, Nevile


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan Dr Gerard


Fell, Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick
Viggers Peter


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Wakeham John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mills, Peter
Walder David (CIitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Walters, Dennis


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Roger
Watt, Hamish


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Monro, Hector
Weatherlll Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Welsh, Andrew


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wiggin, Jerry


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mudd, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Neave, Afrey
Younger, Hon George


Goodhart, Philip
Nelson, Anthony



Goodhew, Victor
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Goodlad, Alastalr
Newton, Tony
Mr.Douglas Henderson and


Gorst, John
Nott, John
Mr, Gordon Wilson


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally








NOES


Abse, Leo
Golding, John
Ogden, Eric


Allaun, Frank
Gould, Bryan
O'Halloran, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Graham, Ted
Orbach, Maurice


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Armstrong, Ernest
Grant, John (Islington C)
Ovenden, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grocott, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Park, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Harrison, Rt Hon Waller
Pavitt, Laurie


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Pendry, Tom


Bates, Alf
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Perry, Ernest


Bean, R. E.
Hatton, Frank
Prescott, John


Beith, A. J.
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Price, William (Rugby)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Hootey, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Horam, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Kowell, Rt Hon D. (Bham, Sm H)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hoyie, Doug (Nelson)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Huckfield, Les
Roderick, Caerwyn


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Rooker, J. W.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Ryman, John


Callaghan, Jirn (Middleton S P)
Janner, Greville
Sedgemore, Brian


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Selby, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Kaufman, Gerald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Kelley, Richard
Snape Peter


Coleman, Donald
Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Concannon, J. D.
Kinnock, Neil
Staliard, A. W.


Conlan Bernard
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Leadbitter, Ted
Swain, Thomas


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lewis, Ron (carlisle)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Cunningham Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lipton, marcus
Thomas, Mike (Necastle E)


Davidson, Arthur
LOmas, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tierney, Sydney


Dean, Joseph(Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Tinn, James


Dempsey, James
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Torney, Tom


Doig, Peter
McElhone, Frank
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Dormand, J.D.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Walker, Herold (Doncaster)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McGurie, Micheal(Ince)
Walker,Terry (Kingswood)


Dunn James A
Maclennan, Robert
Ward, Michael


Dunnett Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Watkins, David


Eadie Alex
Madden, Max
Weelch, Ken


Edge, Geoff
Magee, Bryan
Weitzman, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Wellbeloved, James


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ennals, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
White, James (Pollok)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea w)


Fernyhough Rt Hon E.
Mendelson, John
WilIiams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Flannery, Martin
Mlllan, Rt Hon Bruce
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Foot Rt Hon Michael
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Woodall, Alec


Forrester, John
Moonman, Eric
Woof, Robert


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, lan


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Moyle, Roland
Young, David (Bolton E)


Freeson, Reginald
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick



Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Garrett, w. E. (Wallsend)
Newens, Stanley
Mr, Joseph Ashton and


George, Bruce
Noble, Mike
Mr. Joseph Harper


Ginsburg, David
Oakes, Gordon

Division List No. 167 [See c. 1386]


Division No. 1671
AYES
18.0 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Mudd, David
Watt, Hamish


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Sinclair, Sir George
Welsh, Andrew


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor



Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, George
Mr. Douglas Henderson and


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.
Mr. Gordon Wilson.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael


Allaun, Frank
Freeson, Reginald
Mendelson, John


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mikardo, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrlde)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Gilbert, Dr John
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Atkinson, Norman
Ginsburg, David
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grlmsby)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Golding, John
Molloy, William


Barnett, PI Hon Joel (Heywood)
Gould, Bryan
Moonman, Eric


Bates, Alf
Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bean, R. E.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland


Belth, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Newens, Stanley


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon


Boardman, H.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Ogden, Eric


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hatton, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Orbach Maurice


Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Orme Rt Hon Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Ovenden John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank
Palmer Arthur


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Horam, John
Park George


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Pavitt, Laurie


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Pendry Tom


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les
Perry Ernest


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott John


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Radice Giles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
lrving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clemitson, lvor
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
John, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Roderick, Caerwyn


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnston, Russell (lnverness)
Rooker, J. W.


Conlan Bernard
Jones, Alec(Rhondda)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ross Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kaufman, Gerald
Ryman, John


Cryer, Bob
Kelley Richard
Sainsbury, Tim


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Selby, Harry


Davidson, Arthur
Kannock, Neil
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)
Lambie, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Sllkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Silverman, Jullus


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Small, Willlam


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Snape, Peter


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Spearing, Nigel


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Sprlggs, Leslie


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stallard, A. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Stoddart, David


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


English, Michael
McElhone, Frank
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ennals, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Swain, Thomas


Evans, Fred (Caerphllly)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Tierney, Sydney


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tinn, James


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Torney, Tom


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)







Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Whitlock, William
Woof, Robert


Ward, Michael
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Watkins, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Weetch, Ken
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)



Weitzman, David
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrlngton)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


White, Frank R (Bury)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mr. Joseph Harper


White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Division List No. 168 [See c. 1406]


Division No. 168]
AYES
[9.11 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Loveridge, John
Sims, Roger


Baker, Kenneth
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Body, Richard
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Speed, Keith


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Nelson, Anthony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Burden, F. A.
Neabert, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Newton, Tony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Cockcroft, John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)
Trotter, Neville


Fookes, Miss Janet
Parkinson, Cecil
Wakeham, John


Hicks, Robert
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Welsh, Andrew


Howell, David (Guildford)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Rhodes James, R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Hurd, Douglas
Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rifkind, Malcolm
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


James, David
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Lawson, Nigel






NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Allaun, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Janner, Greville


Anderson, Donald
Dunn, James A.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Armstrong, Ernest
Eadie, Alex
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Ashton, Joe
Edge, Geoff
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Atkinson, Norman
English, Michael
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bates, Alf
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Kelley, Richard


Bean, R. E.
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kerr, Russell


Beith, A. J.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kinnock, Neil


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Flannery, Martin
Lamble, David


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamborn, Harry


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamond, James


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Forrester, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Fowler, Gerald (The wrekin)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bradley, Tom
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freud, Clement
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Hugh D (Provan)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Garrett W. E. (Wallsend)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchan, Norman
George, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gilbert, Dr John
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


campbell, lan




Canavan, Dennis
Ginsburg, David
McElhone, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Carmichael, Nell
Gould, Bryan
McGulre, Michael (ince)


Carter Jones Lewis
Graham, Ted
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grant, John (Islington C)
Maclennan, Robert


Clamitson, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madden, Max


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Magee, Bryan


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hart, Rt Hon Judlth
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marks, Kenneth


Conlan, Bernard
Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Corbett, Robin
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cowans Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Maynard, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cryer Bob
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Horam, John
Mikardo, Ian


Cunningham Dr J (Whlteh)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davidson, Arthur
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelll)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Molloy, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Moonman, Eric


Dempsey, James
Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Doig, Peter
Irving, Rt Kon S. (Dartford)
Moyle, Roland


Dormand, J. D.
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick







Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Newens, Stanley
Sedgamore, Brian
Wainwright, Richard (Coina V)


Noble, Mike
Selby, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oakes, Gordon
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watkins, David


Orbach, Maurice
Sillars, James
Weetch, Ken


Ovenden, John
Silverman, Julius
Weitzman, David


Palmer, Arthur
Skinner, Dennis
Wellbeloved, James


Park, George
Small, William
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
White, James (Pollok)


Pendry, Tom
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Perry, Ernest
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Prescott, John
Sprlggs, Leslie
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Price, William (Rugby)
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Radice, Giles
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stoddart, David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanlon)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Swain, Thomas
Woodall, Alec


Robinson, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Roderick, Caerwyn
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Rooker, J. W.
Tierney, Sydney
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rose, Paul B.
Tinn, James
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Torney, Tom
Mr. Thomas Cox


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Division List No. 169 [See c. 1428]


Division No. 169]
AYES
[10.30 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Elliott, Sir William
Luce, Richard


Aitken, Jonathan
Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Alison, Michael
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Macfarlane, Neil


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairgrieve, Russell
MacKay, Andrew James


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fell, Anthony
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Baker, Kenneth
Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Bell, Ronald
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Faraham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Benyon, W.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan (Chesham)
Mates, Michael


Biffen, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Biggs-Davison, John
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, lan (Eastbourne)
Mills, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)


Boyson Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Braine, Sir Bernard
Griffiths, Eldon
Molyneaux, James


Brittan, Leon
Grist, lan
Monro, Hector


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Brooke, Peter
Hall, Sir John
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brotherton, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Buchanan-smith, Allck
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Buck, Antony
Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bulmer, Esmond




Burden, F. A.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey


Carlisle, Mark
Henderson, Douglas
Nelson, Anthony


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heseltine, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Clark, Alan (plymouth, Sutton)
Higgins, Terences L.
Nott, John


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hodgson, Robin
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip
Page, Rt Hon R. Grabam (Crosby)


Clegg, Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Cockcroft John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hurd, Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Ian


Cormack, Patrick
James, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Costain A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James


Crowder F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutaford)
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Dray son, Burnaby
Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dunlop, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Durant, Tony
Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dykes, Hugh
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhodes James, R.


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Loverldge, John
Ridley, Hon Nicholas







Ridsdale, Julian
Speed, Keith
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rifkind, Malcolm
Spence, John
Viggers, Peter


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Wakeham, John


Ross, William (Londonderry)
Sproat, lain
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rossi, Hugh (Kornsey)
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stanbrook, Ivor
Watt, Hamish


Salnsbury, Tim
Stanley, John
Weatherlll, Bernard


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Wells, John


Scott, Nicholas
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Welsh, Andrew


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Stradling Thomas, J.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Shepherd, Colin
Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Silvester, Fred
Temple-Morris, Peter
Younger, Hon George


Sims, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret



Sinclair, Sir George
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Townsend, Cyril D.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Trotter, Neville
Sir George Young


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
van Straubenzee, W. R.





NOES


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lamborn, Harry


Allaun, Frank
English, Michael
Lamond, James


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, David
Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman
Filch, Alan (Wigan)
Loyden, Eddie


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joe (Heywood)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bates, All
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCartney, Hugh


Bean, R. E.
Ford, Ben
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John
McElhone, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Bennett, Andrew (Slockport N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Freeson, Reginald
Mackintosh, John P.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freud, Clement
Maclennan, Robert


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max


Boolhroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Meacher, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Midleton &amp; P)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Mendelson, John


Campbell, Ian
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mikardo, Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cant, R. B.
Harper, Joseph
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Carmichael, Nell
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Carson, John
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Molloy, William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Moonman Eric


Cartwrlght, John
Hatton, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Moyle, Roland


Clemitson, Ivor
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Noble, Mike


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes, Gordon


Concannon, J. D.
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ogden, Eric


Conlan, Bernard
Hucklield, Les
O'Halloran, Michael


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orbach, Maurice


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hunter, Adam
Ovenden, John


Cronin, John
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur


Crowlher, Stan (Rotherham)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George


Cryer, Bob
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Davles, Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Dolg, Peter
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dormand, J. D.
Judd, Frank
Roderick, Caerwyn


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Russell
Hooker, J. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Eadie, Alex
Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Edge, Geoff
Lamble, David
Sedgemore, Brian







Selby, Harry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
WellbeIoved, James


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
White, James (Pollok)


Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Whillock, William


Sitkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sillars, James
Tlerney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Silverman, Julius
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Skinner, Dennis
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Small, William
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson., Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Woodail, Alec


Spearing, Nigel
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Woof, Robert


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stallard, A. W.
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Ward, Michael



Stoddart, David
Watkins, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stott, Roger
Weetch, Ken
Mr. peter Snape and


Swain, Thomas
Weitzman, David
Mr. James Hamilton

Division List No. 170 [See c. 1439]



AYES
[11.18 a.m.


Abse, Leo
English, Michael
Kelley, Richard


Allaun, Frank
Ennals, David
Kerr, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Kinnock, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lambie, David


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lamond, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fernyhough, Rl Hon E.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Atkinson, Norman
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Flannery, Martin
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Bates, Alf
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bean, R. E.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Beith, A. J.
Ford, Ben
Loyden, Eddie


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCartney, Hugh


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freud, Clement
McElhone, Frank


Boardman, H.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Booth, Rt Hon Albart
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
MacKenzle, Rt Hon Gregor


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Gilbert, Dr John
Mackintosh, John P.


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David
Maclennan, Robert


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, John
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Gould, Bryan
Madden, Max


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Gourlay, Harry
Magee, Bryan


Bucnan, Norman
Graham Ted
Mallalleu, J. P. W.


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Campbell, lan




Canavan, Dennis
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Cant, R. B.
Grimond, Rt, Hon J.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Carmichael, Nell
Grocott, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Carson, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Harper, Jeseph
Mikardo, lan


Cartwright, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clemitson Ivor
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Hatton, Frank
Molloy, William


Cohen Stanley
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Coleman, Donald
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Moyle, Roland


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Concannon, J. D.
Henderson, Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Conlan Bernard
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Corbett, Robin
Horam, John
Noble, Mike


Cowans Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Oakes, Gordon


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle Doug (Nelson)
Ogden, Eric


Cronin, John
Huckfleld, Les
O'Halloran, Michael


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orbach, Maurice


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cunningham. Dr J. (Whiten)
Hunter, Adam
Ovenden, John


Davidson, Arthur
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Park, George


Davies, Itor (Gower)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Grevlile
Pendry, Tom


Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Perry, Ernest


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prescott, John


Dormant), J. D.
John, Brynmor
Price, William (Rugby)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Radice, Giles


Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dunn, James A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Edge, Geoff
Judd, Frank
Robinson, Geoflrey


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Seun)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn







Rodgers, George (Charley)
Swain, Thomas
Welsh, Andrew


Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
White, James (Pollok)


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Whitlock, William


Sedgemore, Brian
Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Tierney, Sydney
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Silkln, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Sillars, James
Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Silverman, Julius
Tuck, Raphael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Skinner, Dennis
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Small, William
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wainwrighl, Richard (Colne V)
Woodall, Alec


Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wool, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sprlggs, Leslie
Ward, Michael
Young. David (Bolton E)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Watklns, David



Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Watt, Hamlsh
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stoddart, David
Weetch, Ken
Mr. Peter Snape and


Stott, Roger
Weltzman, David
Mr. A. W. Stallard


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James





NOES


Adley, Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Allson, Michael
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Arnold, Tom
Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Bell, Ronald
Goodlad, Alastalr
Mudd, David


Benyon, W.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Neave, Airey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nelson, Anthony


Biffen, John
Gray, Hamish
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davlson, John
Griffiths, Eldon
Newton, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Grist, Ian
Nott, John


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hall, Sir John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Bottomley, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Perclval, Ian


Bralne, Sir Bernard
Hannam, John
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Brittan, Leon
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Brooke, Peter
Hayhoe, Barney
Ralson, Timothy


Brotherton, Michael
Heseltlne, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hicks, Robert
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Higgins, Terence L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Buck, Antony
Hodgson, Robin
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Philip
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rhodes Jarrcs, R.


Carlisle, Mark
Hurd, Douglas
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Ridsdale, Julian


Churchill, W. S.
James, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitfe)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Salnsbury, Tim


Cockcroft, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
st. John-Stevas, Norman


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Scott, Nicholas


Cope, John
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cormack, Patrick
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Costain, A. P.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Crouch, David
Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Davles, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sinclair, Sir George


Dodsworlh, Geoffrey
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Drayson, Burnaby
Lloyd, Ian
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Loverldge, John
Speed, Keith


Dunlop, John
McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Nell
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John
Sproat, lain


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, Andrew James
Stainton, Keith


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Elliott, Sir William
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanley, John


Emery, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (Waverlree)


Eyre, Reginald
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tapsell, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Maude, Angus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mawby, Ray
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trotter, Neville


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Monro, Hector
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Montgomery, Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Gilmour. Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Walder, David (Clltheroe)







Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Walters, Dennis
Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Weatherill, Bernard
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Carol Matber


Wells, John
Younger, Hon George

Division List No. 171 [See c. 1439]


Division No. 171]
AYES
[11.30 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair
Nott, John


Alison, Michael
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Oppenheirn, Mrs Sally


Arnold, Tom
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Gray, Hamish
Page, Richard (Workington)


Bell, Ronald
Griffiths, Eldon
Pattie, Geoffrey


Benyon, W.
Grist, Ian
Perclval, Ian


Berry, Hon Anthony
Grylls, Michael
Price, David (Eastlelgh)


Bitten, John
Hall, Sir John
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Safisbury)
Raison, Timothy


Body, Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hastings, Stephen
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Braine, Sir Beenard
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhodes James, R.


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hicks, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian


Brooke, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brotherton, Michael
Hodgson, Robin
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Holland, Philip
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Douglas
Sainsbury, Tim


Bulmer, Esmond
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Burden, F. A.
James, David
Scott, Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shepherd, Colin


Churchill, W. S.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shersby, Michael


Ciark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon S)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sims, Roger


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kltson, Sir Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cockcroft, John
Lament, Norman
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Speed, Keith


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


CormacK, Patrick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kennetg (Rutland)
Sproat, lain


Crouch, David
Lloyd, lan
Stainton, keith


Crowder, F. P.
Loveridge, John
Stanbrook, lvor


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Stokes, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mackay, Andrew James
Tapseil, Peter


Drayson, Burnaby
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward




Dunlop, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Dykes, Hush
Madel, David
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Mates, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Elliott Sir William
Mather, Carol
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Emery Peter
Maude, Angus
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Eyre, Reginaid
Mawby, Ray
Viggers, Peter


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Fell, Anthony
MiIIs, Peter
Waider, David (CIitheroe)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fishier, Sir Nigel
Moate, Roger
Walters, Dennis


Fookes, Miss Janet
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Forman, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Winterton, Nicholas


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hon George


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mudd, David



Glyn, Dr Alan
Neave, Airey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Goodhart, Philip
Neuberl, Michael
Mr. Jim Lester.


Goodhew, Victor
Newton, Tony





NOES


Abse, Leo
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Beith, A. J.


Allaun, Frank
Atkinson, Norman
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood


Anderson, Donald
Bain, Mrs Margaret
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward


Armstrong, Ernest
Bates, All
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Bean, R. E.
Boardman, H.







Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pavitt, Laurie


Boothfoyd, Miss Betty
Hatton, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Perry, Ernest


Bradley, Tom
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Henderson, Douglas
Radice, Giles


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Buchan, Norman
Horam, John
Richardson, Miss Jo


Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, Ian
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Canavan, Dennis
Huckfleld, Les
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Carson, John
Hunter, Adam
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rooker, J. W.


Cartwright, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Sedgemore, Brian


Clemitson, Ivor
Janner, Greville
Selby, Harry


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Cohen, Stanley
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Colquhoun, Maureen
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sillars, James


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Silverman, Julius


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Small, William


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Crawford, Douglas
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Spearing, Nigel


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kinnock, Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
Leadbitter, Ted
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dolg, Peter
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Swain, Thomas


Dormand, J. D.
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Tierney, Sydney


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Tuck, Raphael


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
MacKenzie, Rt Kon Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackintosh, John P.
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max
Ward, Michael


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan
Watkins, David


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Watt, Hamish


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Weetch, Ken


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Weitzman, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wellbeloved, James


Ford, Ben
Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Forrester, John
Mendelson, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mikardo, Ian
White, James (Pollok)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'W'd)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Whitlock, William


Freeson, Reginald
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbrlde)
Wigley, Dafydd


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Molloy, William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


George, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Gilbert, Dr John
Moyle, Roland
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Golding, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Gould, Bryan
Newens, Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gouriay, Harry
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Graham, Ted
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Ogden, Eric
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Grant, John (Islington C)
O'Halloran, Michael
Young David (Bolton E)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Orbach, Maurice



Grocott, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Ovenden, John
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Joseph Ashton.


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Park, George

Division List No. 172 [See c. 1482]


Division No. 1721
AYES
[2.00 p.m.


Ailken, Jonathan
Hall, Sir John
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Alison, Michael
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Page, Richard (Workington)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Parkinson, Cecil


Awdry, Daniel
Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Hannam, John
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Benyon, W.
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Prior, Rt Hon James


Berry, Hon Anthony
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Biffen, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Rathbone, Tim


Blaker, Peter
Hodgson, Robin
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Sottomley, Peter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rhodes James, R.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hurd, Douglas
Ridsdale, Julian


Brittan, Leon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Peter
James, David
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grlnstead)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Sainsbury, Tim


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Bulmer, Esmond
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kimball, Marcus
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Shepherd, Colin


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Silvester, Fred


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Sims, Roger


Clegg, Walter
Lawrence, Ivan
Sinclair, Sir George


Cockcroft, John
Lawson, Nigel
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cormack, Patrick
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Spence, John


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Loveridge, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Sproat, lain


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Macfarlane, Neil
Stainton, Keith


Dunlop, John
MacGregor, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Durant, Tony
MacKay, Andrew James
Stanley, John


Dykes, Hugh
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Stokes, John


Elliott, Sir William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Emery. Peter
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Eyre, Reginald
Mates, Michael
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrleve, Russell
Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Angus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trotter, Neville


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller Hal (Bromsgrove)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter
Viggers, Peter


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Monro Hector
Walters, Dennis


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
Montgomery, Fergus
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wells, John


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wlggin, Jerry


Goodhew, Victor
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mudd, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hon George


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Eldon
Neubert, Michael
Mr. Peter Morrison and


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Grylls, Michael
Nott, John





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Allaun, Frank
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian


Ashley, Jack
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Canavan, Dennis


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Atkinson, Norman
Sooth, Rt Hon Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boothroyd, Miss Betly
Cartwright, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bloyden, James (Bish Auck)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Clemitson, Ivor


Bates, All
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael







Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Concannon, J. D.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cowans, Harry
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cronln, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Crowther. Stall (Rotherham)
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Selby, Harry


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Davles, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davles, Denzll (Llanelll)
Kelley, Richard
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Russell
Sillars, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Silverman, Jullus


Dempsey, James
Lambie, David
Skinner, Dennis


Doig, Peter
Lamborn, Harry
Small, William


Dormand, J. D.
Lamond, James
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leadbitter, Ted
Snape, Peter


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnett, Jack
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Spriggs, Leslle


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallafd, A. W.


Edge, Geoff
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


English, Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradlord W)
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McDonald Dr Oonagh
Swain, Thomas


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McElhone Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thompson, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tierney, Sydney


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Madden, Max
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Tuck, Raphael


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Freeson, Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Michael


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watt, Hamish


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Weetch, Ken


Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Weitzman, David


Graham, Ted
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moyle, Roland
Welsh, Andrew


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, James (Pollock)


Grocott, Bruce
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Whitlock, William


Hamilton James (Bothwell)

Willey Rt Hon Frederick


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hart, R Hon Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)



O'Halloran, Michael
Williams, Alexander (Hamilton)



Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John
Woodall, Alec


Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Henderson, Douglas
Park, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hooley, Frank
Penhaligon, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Horam, John
Perry, Ernest



Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Prescott, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Huckfield, Les
Radice, Giles
Mr. Frank R. White

Division List No. 173 [See c. 1489]


Division No. 173]
AYES
[2.33 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastie W)


Allaun, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bldwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cant, R. B.


Ashton, Joe
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cartwright, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bradley, Tom
Clemitson, Ivor


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Bean, R. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cohen, Stanley







Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Prescolt, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Huckfield, Les
Radice, Giles


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Corbett, Robin
Hunter, Adam
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Cowans, Harry
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brlghouse)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Crawford, Douglas
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cronin, John
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Hooker, J. W.


Cryer, Bob
John, Brynmor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Sandelson, Neville


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Selby, Harry


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Davles, Ifor (Gower)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kelley, Richard
Sillars, James


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Dolg, Peter
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, J. D.
Lamble, David
Small, William


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Snape, Peter


Dunnett, Jack
Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sprlggs, Leslie


Edge, Geoff
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Stallard, A. W.


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Stoddart, David


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Strang, Gavin


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McCartney, Hush
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
MacCormic'k, lain
Swain, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McDonald, Dr Oonaah
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thompson, George


Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tierney, Sydney


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Torney, Tom


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Madden, Max
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Magee, Bryan
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mallalieu, J. P. w.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Freeson, Reginald

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Freud, Clement
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Terry (Kingwood)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Dr Edmaund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Welkins, David


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Gilbert, Dr John
Meacher, Michael
Weitzman, David


Ginsburg, David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Gould, Bryan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kllbride)
White, James (Pollock)


Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
whitlock, william


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshew)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Grant, John (Islington C)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Grocott, Bruce
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
WilIiams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Harper, Joseph
Newens, Stanley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
O'Halloran, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Orbach, Maurice
Woodall, Alec


Hatton, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
woof, Robert


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ovenden, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Heffer, Eric S.
Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton E)


Henderson, Douglas
Park, George



Hooley, Frank
Pendty, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Horam, John
Penhsligon, David
Mr. James Tinn and


Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Perry, Ernest
Mr. Alf Bates




NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Burden, F. A.


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Carlisle, Mark


Awdry, Daniel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Baker, Kenneth
Bralne, Sir Bernard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bell, Ronald
Brlttan, Leon
Clark, William (Croydon S)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bervyon, W.
Brooke, Peter
Clegg, Walter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brotherton, Michael
Cockcroft, John


Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cope, John







Cormack, Patrick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp;amp; Deal)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rhodes James, R.


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin


Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Fell, Anthony
McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacGregor, John
Sinclair, Sir George


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson P (New Forest)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Sproat, lain


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Mates, Michael
Stainton, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Slanbrook, Ivor


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus
Stanley, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodhew, Victor
Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodlad, Alastalr
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stokes, John


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Mitchell, David (BasingstoKe)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grist, Ian
Monro, Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Grylls, Michael
Montgomery Fergus
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hall, Sir John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Trotter, Neville


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
van Strabenzee,W.R.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mudd, David
Wakeham, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clirtheroe)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Hayhoe, Barney
Neubert, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Hesltine, Michel
Newton, Tony
Wells, John


Hicks, Robert
Nott, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Higgins, Terence L.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wiggin, Jerry


Hodgson, Bobin
Page, Richard (Workington)
Winterton, Nocolas


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G.(Ealing, Acton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon Johnv
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Michael Roborts


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Division List No. 174 [See c. 1492]


Division No. 174]
AYES
[2.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crawford, Douglas


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronin, John


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Armstrong, Ernest
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp;amp; P)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Ashley, Jack
Campbell, Ian
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Canavan, Dennis
Davidson, Arthur


Atkinson, Norman
Cant, R. B.
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Carmichael, Neil
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cartwright, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bales, Alf
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dempsey, James


Bean, R. E.
Clemitson, Ivor
Doig, Peter


Beith, A. J.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dormand, J. D.


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunn, James A.


Blenkinsop, rthur
Concannon, J. D.
Dunnett, Jack


Boardman, H.
Conlan, Bernard
Eadle, Alex


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Corbett, Robin
Edge, Geoff


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cowans, Harry
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp;amp; Scun)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English, Michael







Ennals, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon w. (Kilmarnock)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Selby, Harry


Ewlng, MRS Winifred (Moray)
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwlch)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sillars, James


Flannery, Martin
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Small, William


Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, Cyril (Rchdale)


Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacCormick, lain
Snape, Peter


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Freeson, Reginald
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Freud, Clement
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Steel, Rt Hon David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stewarl, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stoddart, David


George, Bruce
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott, Roger


Gilbert, Dr John
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Golding, John
Madden, Max
Swain, Thomas


Gould, Bryan
Magee, Bryan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu J. P. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Graham, Ted
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thompson, George


Grant John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Tierney, Sydney


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tuck, Raphael


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hatton, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hayman. Mrs Helene
Moyle Roland
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Heffer, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Henderson, Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ward, Michael


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Noble, Mike
Weetch, Ken


Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
O'Hall'oran Michael
Weitzman, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach Maurice
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfleld, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ovenden, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Pavltt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Prescott, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


John, Brynmor
Radic'e, Giles
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Woodall, Alec


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Woof, Robert


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn



Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Mr A W. Stallard and


Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Joseph Ashton


Kerr, Russell






NOES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Peter
Crowder, F. P.


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)


Alison, Michael
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Arnold, Tom
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Awdry, Daniel
Buck, Antony
Drayson, Burnaby


Baker, Kenneth
Bulmer, Esmond
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bell, Ronald
Burden, F. A.
Dunlop, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Durant, Tony


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, Mark
Dykes, Hugh


Berry, Hon Anthony
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, John
Churchill, W. S.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Biggs-Davison, John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Elliott, Sir William


Blaker, Peter
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Emery, Peter


Body, Richard
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Walter
Fairgrieve, Russell


Bottomley, Peter
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Brlttan, Leon
Costain, A. P.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crouch, David
Forman, Nigel







Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian


Fry, Peter
Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) 
Macfarlane, Neil
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
MacGregor, John
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, Andrew James
Scott, Nicholas


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Goodhew, Victor 
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sproat, lain


Hampson, Dr Keith 
Mills, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Monro, Hector
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Montgomery, Fergus
Stewart, lan (Hitchin)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stokes, John


Haseltine, Michael 
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, CharlesIes (Devizes)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) 


Hodgson, Robin
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy(Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Howe, Rl Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Howell, David (Gulldford)
Neubert, Michael
van Straubenzee W. R.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony
Vaughn Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nott, John
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wakeha'm John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Walder David (CIitheroe)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Walker,' Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


James, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Weatherill Bernard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James
whitelaw, Rt Hon William


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wiggin, Jerry


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
winterton, Nicholas


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Younger, Hon George


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)



Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Le Merchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Sir George Young


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhodes James, R.

Division List No. 175 [See c. 1510]


Division No. 175]
AYES
[4.2 p.m


Adley, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Antony
Elliott, Sir William


Alison, Michael
Burden, F. A.
Emery, Peter


Amery. Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Mark
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Eyre, Reginald


Awdry, Daniel
Churchill, W. S.
Falrgrleve, Russell


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fell, Anthony


Baker, Kenneth
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cockecroft, John
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cope, John
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, John
Cormack, Patrick
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodhart, Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Drayson, Burnaby
Goodhew, Victor


Brittan, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Goodlad, Alastair


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dunlop, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brooke, Peter
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brotherton, Michael
Dykes, Hugh
Gray, Hamlsh


Bryan, Sir Paul
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Griffiths, Eldon







Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grylis, Michael
Madel, David
Scott, Nicholas


Hall, Sir John 
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hall-Davit, A. G. F.
Marten, Nell
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Hampson, Or Keith
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Hannam, John
Maude, Angus
Sims, Roger


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sinclair, Sir George


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward 
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Henderson, Douglas 
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spence, John


Heseltine, Michael
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hicks, Robert
Molyneaux, James
Sproat, lain


Higglns, Terence L.
Monro, Hector
Stamton, Keith


Hodgson, Robin
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Holland, Philip
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stanley, John


Hordern, Peter 
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Howell, David (Guildford)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mudd David
Stokes, John


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Neave Alrey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hurd, Douglas 
Nelson, Anthony
Tapseil, Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


James, David 
Noll, John
Tebbil, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jones, Artfiuf (Daventry)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Parkinson, Cecil
Thompson, George


Kershaw, Anthony 
Patlie, Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyrit D.


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Trotter, Neville


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Peyton, Rt Hon John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Knox, David 
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wakeham, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lawrence, Ivan
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Lawson, Nigel
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Le Merchant, Spencer 
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Weatherill, Bernard


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
wells, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees-Davies, W. R.v
Welsh, Andrew


Loverldge, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
wiggin Jerry


Luce, Richard 
Rhodes James, R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Macdden, Sir Stephen 
Ridlay, Hon Nicholas
Wirtorton Nlcholas


MaeCormick, lain 
Ridsdale, Julian
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


McCrindle, Robert 
Rilkind, Malcolm
Younger Hon George


Macfarlane, Nell
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



MacGregor, John
Ross, William (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacKay, Andrew James
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sir George Young and


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Mr. Peter Morrison


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sainsbury, Tim





NOES


Abse, Leo
Campbell, Ian
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Canavan, Dennis
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Dunn, James A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Carmichael, Nell
Dunnelt, Jack


Armstrong, Ernest
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Eadie, Alex


Ashley, Jack
Cartwright, John
Edge, Geoff


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clemitson, Ivor
English, Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ennals, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Coleman, Donald
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bates, Alf
Coiquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Beith, A. J.
Conlan, Bernard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Corbett, Robin
Flannery, Martin


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cowans, Harry
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bldwell, Sydney
Cronin, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Ford, Ben


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Forrester, John


Boardman, H.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Davidson, Arthur
Freeson, Reginald


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Freud, Clement


Bradley, Tom
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
George, Bruce


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dempsey, James
Gilbert, Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter
Ginsburg, David


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dormand, J. D.
Golding, John







Gould, Bryan
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Gourlay, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregol
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max
Silverman, Julius


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Magee, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Harper, Joseph
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Small, William


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Hatton, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Maynard, Miss Joan
Spriggs, Leslie


Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Stallard, A. W.


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Horam, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stoddart, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Stott, Roger


Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Molloy, William
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Swain, Thomas


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Oakes, Gordon
Tierney, Sydney


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


John, Brynmor
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ovenden, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Judd, Frank
Park George
Ward, Michael


Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Kelley, Richard
Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Kerr, Russell
Penhaligon, David
Weitzman, David


Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest
WelI beloved, James


Lambie, David
Prescott, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lamborn, Harry
Price, William (Rugby)
White, James (Pollok)


Lamond, James
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur (Paddlngton)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Leadbitter, Ted
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lee, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Robinson. Geoffrey
Wilson., Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lipton, Marcus
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woodall, Alec


Loveridge, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Woof, Robert


Loyden, Eddie
Rooker, J. W.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



McCartney, Hugh
Ryman, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sandelson, Neville
Mr Thomas Cox and


McElhone, Frank
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Ted Graham


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Selby, Harry

Division List No. 176 [See c. 1510]


Division No. 176]
AYES
[4.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Peter
Drayson, Burnaby


Aitken, Jonathan
Brotherton, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Alison, Michael
Bryan, Sir Paul
Dunlop, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Buck, Antony
Dykes, Hugh


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Burden, F. A.
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Awdry Daniel
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Carlisle, Mark
Elliott, Sir William


Baker Kenneth
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Benyon, W.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Eyre, Reginald


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clegg, Walter
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biffen, John
Cockcroft, John
Fell, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Cope, John
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Body, Richard
Cormack, Patrick
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Crawford, Douglas
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crouch, David
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crowder, F. P.
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Glyn, Dr Alan







Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
MacKay, Andrew James
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Goodhew Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Madei, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gray, Hamish
Marten, Neil
Shepherd, Colin


Griffiths, Eldon
Mates, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Grist, Ian
Mather, Carol
Sims, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Hall, Sir John
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Speed, Keith


Hannam, John
Mills, Peter
Spence, John


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Moate, Roger
Sproat, lain


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Molyneaux, James
Stainton, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Stanbiook, Ivor


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Montgomery, Fergus
Stanley, John


Henderson, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Heseltine, Michael
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Higglns, Terence L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Hodgson, Robin
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Holland, Philip
Mudd, David
Tapsell, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Howell, David (Gulldford)
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hurd, Douglas
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thompson, George


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Townsend, Cyril D.


James, David
Parkinson, Cecil
Trotter, Neville


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Van Straubenree, W. R.


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wakeham, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Pries, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Ciltheroe)


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Walters, Dennis


Lamont, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wells, John


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Welsh, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lawson, Nigel
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wiggin, Jerry


Le Merchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rhodes James, R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Luce, Richard
Ridsdale, Julian
Younger, Hon George


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rifkind, Malcolm



McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macfarlane, Nell
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Sir George Young and


MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)
Mr. Jim Lester.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Buchan, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James


Anderson, Donald
Campbell, Ian
Doig, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Ashley, Jack
Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashton, Joe
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunn, James A.


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cartwright, John
Dunnett, Jack


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clemitson, Ivor
Edge, Geoff


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bates, Alf
Cohen, Stanley
English, Michael


Bean, R. E.
Coleman, Donald
Ennals, David


Beith, A. J.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Conlan, Bernard
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cowans, Harry
Filch, Alan (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cronin, John
Flannery, Martin


Boardman, H.
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cryer, Bob
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ford, Ben


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Denzil (Lianelli)
Freeson, Reginald


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)







Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sedgemore, Brian


George, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Salby, Harry


Gilbert, Dr John
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ginsburg, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Sheidon, Rt Hon Robert


Golding, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gould, Bryan
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Mrs Renée (Woiv NE)


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silverman, Julius


Grant, John (Islington C)
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Magee, Bryan
Small, William


Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Harper, Joseph
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stallard, A. W.


Hatton, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Horam, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strang, Gavin


Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Huckfleld, Les
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Moyle, Roland
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hunter, Adam
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Newens, Stanley
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Noble Mike
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Oakes, Gordon
Tierney, Sydney


Janner, Greville
O'Halloran, Michael
Tinn, James


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Orbach, Maurice
Torney, Tom




Tuck, Raphael


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon EricG.


John, Brynmor
Ovenden, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Johnston, Walter (Derby S)
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John
Ward, Michael


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Park, George
Watkins, David


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Kaufman, Gerald
Penhaligon, David
Wellbeloved, James


Kelley, Richard
Perry, Ernest
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kerr, Russell
Prescott, John
white, James (Pollok)


Kinnock, Neil
Price, William (Rugby)
Whitlock, William


Lambie, David
Radlce, Giles
Willey Rt Hon Frederick


Lamborn, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lamond, James
Richardson, Miss Jo
williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lee, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woodall, Alec


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
woof, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lipton, Marcus
Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E.)


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ryman, John
Mr. Thomas Cox and


McCartney, Hugh
Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Ted Graham.

Division List No. 177 [See c. 1519]


Division No. 177]
AYES
[4.53 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Altken, Jonathan
Brooke, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Allson, Michael
Brotherton, Michael
Drayson, Burnaby


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Arnold, Tom
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dunlop, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony


Awdry, Daniel
Burden, F. A.
Dykes, Hugh


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Baker, Kenneth
Carlisle, Mark
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Bell, Ronald
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Elliott, Sir William


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Churchill, W. S.
Emery, Peter


Benyon, W.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bitten, John
Clegg, Walter
Eyre, Reginald


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockcroft, John
Fairgrieve, Russell


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fell, Anthony


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Costain, A. P.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crawford, Douglas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Crouch, David
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Brittan, Leon
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Fox, Marcus







Fry, Peter
MacCormick, lain
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Macfarlane, Nell
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
MacGregor, John
Sainsbury, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
MacKay, Andrew James
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodhart, Philip
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shelton, WilIiam (Streatham)


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shepherd, Colin


Goodlad, Alastair
Madel, David
Shersby, Michael


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sims, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Marten, Neil
Sinclair, Sir George


Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Griffiths, Eldon
Mather, Carol
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grist, Ian
Maude, Angus
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Grylls, Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Speed, Keith


Hall, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Spence, John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mayhew, Patrick
Sproat, lain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stalnton, Keith


Hannam, John
Mills, Peter
Stanbrook, Ivor


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mitchell David (Basingstoke)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moate, Roger
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Henderson, Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Heseltlne, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hodgson, Robin
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Holland, Philip
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neave, Airey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, George


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Viggers, Peter


James, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wakeham, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walters, Dennis


Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastlelgh)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kimball, Marcus
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wells, John


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Welsh, Andrew


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Knox, David
Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Lamont, Norman
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Winterton, Nicholas


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Le Merchant, Spencer
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Nigel Lawson and


Lloyd, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian
Sir George Young.


Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm





NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davles, Denzil (Llainell)


Allaun, Frank
Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim (Mlddleton &amp; P)
Dsan, Joseph (Leeds Wast)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ian
Dempsey, James


Armstrong, Ernest
Canavan, Dennis
Dolg, Polar


Ashley, Jack
Cant, R. B.
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Carmlchael, Nell
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, Norman
Cartwright, John
Dunn, James A.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunnett, Jack


Burnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clemilson, Ivor
Eadie, Alex


Bates, All
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Edge, Geoff


Bean, R. E.
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Belth, A. J.
Coleman, Donald
English, Michael


Bonn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ennals, David


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Corbett, Robin
Ewlng, Harry (Stifling)


Blenklnsop, Arthur
Cowans, Harry
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Boardman, H.
Cronln, John
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Flannery, Martin


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bradley, Tom
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davlas, Bryan (Enfleld N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)







Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Freud, Clement
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maclennan, Robert
Sillars, James


George, Bruce
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David
Magee, Bryan
Small, William


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Snape, Peter


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Maynard, Miss Joan
Staliard, A. W.


Grocott, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harper, Joseph
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stoddart, David


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Strang, Gavin


Hatton, Frank
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Horam, John
Moyle, Roland
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (B'ham, Sm H)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


HuCkfield, Les
Newens, Stanley
Thomas Ron (Bristol NW)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Noble, Mike
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oakes, Gordon
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jermy (N Devon)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Tierney, Sydney


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Orbach, Maurice
Tinn, James


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Torney, Tom


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Ovenden, John
Tuck, Raphael


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


John, Brynmor
Park, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Parry, Robert
Ward, Michael


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pendry, Tom



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Penhaligon, David
Weetch, Ken


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, Ernest
Weitzman, David


Judd, Frank
Prescott John
Wellbeloved, James


Kaufman, Gerald
Prive, William (Rugby)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Kelley, Richard
Radice, Giles
White, James (Pollok)


Kerr, Russell
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Whitlock, William


Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lambie, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Lee, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul B.
Woof, Robert


Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Ryman, John



Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McCartney, Hugh
Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. James Hamilton and


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Selby, Harry
Mr. Thomas Cox.


McElhone, Frank
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)

Division List No. 178 [See c. 1521]


Division No. 178]
AYES
[5.11 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Boardman, H.
Coieman, Donald


Allaun, Frank
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen


Anderson, Donald
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bradley, Tom
Corbett, Robin


Ashley, Jack
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkins. Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crawford, Douglas


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Cronin, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian
Cryer, Bob


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Canavan, Dennis
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Bales, Alf
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bean, R. E.
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Beith, A. J.
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)
Cartwright, John
Davies, Denzil (Llaneili)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Castle, Rt Hon. Barbara
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clemitson, Ivor
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dempsey, James


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Doig, Peter







Dormand, J. D.
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Dully, A. E. P.
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dunn, James A.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedge more, Brian


Dunnell, Jack
Leadbltter, Ted
Selby, Harry


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Shaw, Arnold (llford South)


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


English, Michael
Loyden, Eddie
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ennals, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacCormick, lain
Sillars, James


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Silverman, Julius


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McElhone, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Small, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Flannery, Martin
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Snape, Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spriggs, Leslie


Forrester, John
Madden, Max
Stallard, A. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Magee, Bryan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


George, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gilbert, Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Goldlng, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molloy, William
Thompson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tierney, Sydney


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Haltersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Henderson, Douglas
Orbach, Maurice
Walker Terry (Kingswood)


Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Horam, John
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Padley, Walter
Weetch, Ken


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
Pardoe, John
Wellbeloved, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Park, George
Welsh, Andrew


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Burry)




White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie
Whitlock, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom
Wigley, Dafydd


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Penhaligon, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jackson Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Janner, Greville
Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


John, Brynmor
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall, Alec


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woof, Robert


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. James Turner and


Kerr, Russell
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Ted Graham.


Kinnock, Neil
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Blaker, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Aitken, Jonathan
Body, Richard
Buck, Antony


Alison, Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bottomley, Peter
Carlisle, Mark


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Churchill, W. S.


Awdry, Daniel
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bell, Ronald
Brittan, Leon
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Clegg, Walter


Benyon, W.
Brooke, Peter
Cockcroft, John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brotherton, Michael
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Biffen, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Bryan, Sir Paul
Cormack, Patrick







Costain, A. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rathbone, Tim


Crouch, David
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Crowder, F. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kershaw, Anthony
Ree-Davles, W. R.


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Drayson Burnaby
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rhodes James, R.


du Cann Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dunlop, John
Lamont, Norman
Ridsdale, Julian


Durant Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Dykes'Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eden.Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawson, Nigel
Rost, Peler (SE Derbyshire)


Elliott, Sir William
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sainsbury, Tim


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott, Nicholas


Fairgrleve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fell, AnNiony
Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Strealham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maclarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, M)
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacKay, Andrew James
Sinclair, Sir George


Forman, Nigel
Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fox, Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfleld)


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spence, John


Gardiner George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Mates, Michael
Sproat, lain


Giyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Slanbrook, Ivor


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Stanley John


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodlad, Alastak
Mayhew, Patrick
Stewart, Ian (Hitcnin)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stokes, John


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman
Tapsell Peter


Griffiths, Eldon
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger
Taylor


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector
Tebbit, Norman


Hall, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Thatcher,Rt Hon Margaret


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Townsend,Cyril D.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hannam, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
van Straubnzee


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Vauahan, Dr Gerard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David
Viggers Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Neave, Airey
Wakeha'm, John


Heseltine, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Walder David (Clitheroe)


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Hlggins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
Walters Dennis


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wells, John


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw Rt Hon William


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, David (Gulldford)
Parkinson, Cecil
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, David (Viflrral)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Sir George Young and


James, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. Carol Mather


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Raison, Timothy

Division List No. 179 [See c. 1565]


Division No. 179]
AYES
[7.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)


Alison, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Sir Bernard
Clegg, Walter


Arnold, Tom
Brittan, Leon
Cockcroft, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)


Awdry, Daniel
Brooke, Peter
Cope, John


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Brotherton, Michael
Cormack, Patrick


BeH, Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bryan, Sir Paul
Crawford, Douglas


Benyon, W.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Crouch, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buck, Antony
Crowder, F. P.


Bitten, John
Buhner, Esmond
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Biggs-Davison, John
Burden, F. A.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Body, Richard
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, Burnaby


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward







Dunlop, John
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhodes James, R.


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rl Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott, Sir William
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rlfkind, Malcolm


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lloyd, Ian
Rossi, Hugh (Horraey)


Fell, Anltiony
Luce, Richard
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacCormick, lain
Sainabury, Tim


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrlndie, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
Macfarlane, Nell
Scott, Nicholas


Fookes, Miss Janet
MacGregor, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew James
Shellon, William (Slreatham)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C't'd)
Macmilian, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shepherd, Colin


Fox, Marcus
McNalr-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shersby, Michael


Fry, Peter
McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sims, Roger


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Madel, David
Sinclair, Sir George


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Smith', Dudley (Warwick)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mates, Michael
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mather, Carol
Speed Keith


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Spence, John


Goodhew, Victor
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray
Sproat, lain


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stainton, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gray, Hamish
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Stanley John


Griffiths, Eldon
Mills, Peter
Steen Anthony (Wavertree)


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stewart Ian (Hitchin)


Hall, Sir John
Moate, Roger
Stokes John


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Molyneaux, James
Stradling Thomas,J.


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monro, Hector
Tapsell Peter


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Fergus
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hannam, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Taylor Teddy (cathcart)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Taylor,Teddy (catchart)


Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Tebbit, Norman


Havers. Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Charles (Devices)
Temple Morris, Peter


Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Henderson. Douglas
Neave Airey
Thomas, Rl Hon P. (Hendon S)


Heseltlne, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, George


Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D.


Higgins, Terence L.
Newton, Tony
Trotter, Neville


Hodgson, Robin
Nott, John
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Viggers, Peter


Hordern, Peter
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wainwright, Richard (C0ine V)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Page, Richard (Workington)
Wakeham, John


Howell, David (Gulldford)
Pardoe, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parkinson, Cecil
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Pattle, Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


Hurd, Douglas
Perclval, Ian
Welsh, Andrew


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


James, David
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnson Smith, G. (E Groinstead)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wilson, Gordon (dundee E)


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Pym, Rl Hon Francis
Winsterton, Nicholas


Kaberry, Sir Donild
Raison, Timothy
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim
Younger, Hon George


Kimball, Marcus
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter



King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp;amp; Deal)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees-Davies, W.R.
Mr Peter Morrison and


Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Sir George Young


Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Conlan, Bernard


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Blsh Auck)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Cowans, Harry


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
gray Dr Jeremy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronln John


Ashley, Jack Brown,
Hugh D. (provan)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan Norman
Cryer, Bob


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
callaghan Jim (Middleton &amp;amp;P)
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Atkinson, Norman
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp;amp; P)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, lan
Davidson, Arthur


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Canavan, Dennis
Davies, Bryan (Enfleld N)


Bates, Alf
Cant, R.B.
Davies, Denzll (Llanelll)


Bean, R. E.
Carmlehael, Neil
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Belth, A. J.
Carler-Jones, Lewis
Joseph (Leeds Wesf)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)
Cartwright, John
Dempsey, James


Bennelt, Andrew (Stockport N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Doig, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael
Dormand, J. D.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boardman, H.
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Dunn, James A.


Boolh, Rt Hon Albert
Concannon. J. D.
Dunnett, Jack







Eadie, Alex
Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Stephen (Isle ol Wight)


Edge, Geoff
Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, John (Brlgg &amp;amp; Scun)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp;amp; Slough)
Ryman, John


English, Michael
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sandelson, Neville


Ennals, David
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Marcus
Selby, Harry


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Loyden, Eddie
Shaw, Arnold (lltord South)


Ewlng, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Flannery, Martin
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Sllkin, Rt Hon John (Oeptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fool, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sillars, James


Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, Jotin (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Freud, Clement
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smilh, John (N Lanarkshire)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Mahon, Simon
Spriggs, Leslie


Gilbert. Dr John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stallard, A. W.


Ginsburg, David
Marks, Kenneth
Steel, Rt Hon David


Goldlng, John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Graham, Ted
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mikardo, Ian
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Grocolt, Bruce
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Swain, Thomas


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlllery)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Boy
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hatton, Frank
Molloy, William
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Hooley, Frank
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tierney, Sydney


Horam, John
Newens, Stanley
Tinn, James


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, SmH)
Noble Mike
Torney, Tom


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
oakes', Gordon
Tuck, Raphael


Huckfield, Les
Ogden, Eric
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
O'Halloran, Michael
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker Terry (Kingswood)


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Watkins, David


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Padley, Walter
Weetch, Ken


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur
Weiitzman,


Janner, Greville
Park, George
Wellbeloved, James


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert
Whit, Frank R. (Bury)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
whit, William


John. Brynmor
Pendry, Tom
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Penhaligon, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Johnson, Walter Derby S)
Perry, Ernest
Williams, Alar, Lee (Hornch'ch)


Johnston Russell (Inverness)
Prescott, John
Williams Sir Thomas (Warringion)


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Pnce, William (Rugby)
Wilson,Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones, Dan (Burniey)
Radice, Giles
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodall Alec


Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Woof Robert


Kerr, Russell
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. James Hamilton.

Division List No. 180 [See c. 1588]


Division No. 180]
AYES
[8.43 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Canavan, Dennis


Allaun, Frank
Bidwell, Sydney
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Cartwrlght, John


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Castle, Rt Hon. Barbara


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Clemitson, Ivor


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, Norman
Bradley, Tom
Cohen, Stanley


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Colquhoun, Ms Maur[...]


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Concannon, J. D.


Bean, R. E.
Buchan, Norman
Conlan, Bernard


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp;amp; P)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony (Wedgwood)
Campbell, Ian
Cowans, Harry







Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cronln, John
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Kiltedder, James
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Cryer, Bob
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rooker, J. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Lambie, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davidson, Arthur
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamond, James
Ryman, John


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brianv


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, Johnv
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (lltord South)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sillars, James


Eadie, Alex
McCartney, Hugh
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William


English, Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ennals, David
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Evans Fred (Caerphilly)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Snape, Peter


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mackintosh, John P.
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Ferryhough, Rt Hon E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Madden, Max
Steel, Rt Hon David


Flannery, Martin
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekln)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Swain, Thomas


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


George, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)
Tinn, James


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Molloy, William
Tuck, Raphael


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Oakes, Gordon
Ward, Michael


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Watkins, David


Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Weetch, Ken


Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice
Weitzman, David


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wellbeloved, James


Huckfield, Les
Ovenden, John
While, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Padley, Walter
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Hunter, Adam
Pardoe, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Park, George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Penhaligon, David
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest
Woodall, Alec


John, Brynmor
Prescott, John
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton E)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Richardson, Miss Jo



Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Roberts, Alberl (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Judd, Frank
Robinson, Geoffrey
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Aitken. Jonathan
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alison, Michael
Body, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buck, Antony


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Bulmer, Esmond


Awdry, Daniel
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Burden, F. A.


Bell, Ronald
Braine, Sir Bernard
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Erittan, Leon
Carlisle, Mark


Benyon, W.
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Berry, Hon Anthony
Brooke, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Biffen, John
Brotherton, Michael
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)







Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clegg, Walter
Rathbone, Tim
Raison, Timothy


Cockcroft, John
James, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Cope, John
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cormack, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Costaln A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, R.


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kltson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Julian


Dodsworth Geoffrey
Knox, David
Rilkind, Malcolm


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Drayson Burnaby
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dunlop, John
Le Merchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Edert, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Elliott, Sir William
Luce, Richard
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Eyre, Reginald
Macfarlane, Nell
Shepherd, Colin


Felrgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


Fell, Anthony
MacKay, Andrew James
Silvester, Fred


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sims, Roger


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sinclair, Sir George


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh, N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fookes Miss Janet
Madel, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Marten, Nell
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael
Spence, John


Fry, peter
Maude, Angus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Sproat, lain


Gardiner, George (Relgate)
Mawby, Ray
Stainton, Keith


Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Stokes, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mitchell, David (Baslngstoke)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Peter


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Molyneaux, James
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus
Tebbit, Norman


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Hall, Sir John
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hastings, Stephen
Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tonyv
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Heseltlne, Michael
Nott, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Weatherill, Bernard


Higglns, Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wiggin, Jerry


Hodgson, Robin
Page, Richard (Workington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Holland, Philip
Parkinson, Cecil
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Hordern, Peter
Pattle, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Younger, Hon George


Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, Rt Hon John



Hunt, David (Wirral)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Carol Mather and


Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Nigel Lawson.